EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
We could at least get rid of the eco-subsidies that industry (and consumers) have to pay for, no need for subsidies.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Germany loaded eco subsidies onto its consumers. Gordon Brown loaded them on to UK industry. Who's in better shape ?
German industry also moved - very rationally and very quickly - towards cogen. If you go to plants in Germany, they very often have their own combined heat and power gas turbine in the basement, effectively removing themselves from the increased cost of electricity.
Yes sensible management. But they could also get subsidies to do it.
The best use for energy management remains as always to improve efficiency and therefore need less of it. If HMG pushed this line rather than the usual scary global warming bollocks they'd make more progress.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Germany loaded eco subsidies onto its consumers. Gordon Brown loaded them on to UK industry. Who's in better shape ?
German industry also moved - very rationally and very quickly - towards cogen. If you go to plants in Germany, they very often have their own combined heat and power gas turbine in the basement, effectively removing themselves from the increased cost of electricity.
It's an easy mistake to make. They cited the HoC library figures for Norway's net contribution and then extrapolated the gross £22 per capita saving to the UK population. They didn't adjust their figures for our per capita GDP difference which is how the EU calculates each nation's gross contribution (famously forcing our government to pay an additional £1.7bn because of the black economy).
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it out at the time as well.
You are right about the money anyway, I don't think the £6bn or £1.7bn really makes a big difference to the argument for me. It is, and has always been the direction of our trade, long run trade growth with the EU is -0.7% per year (-2.7% since 2011) and long term RoW trade growth is 5% per year. Not being able to form trade deals with fast growing economies and waiting for the EU to do it and then gut the parts of the deal we want (services) as the first option in order to get the deal done is something we should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
The Leave.EU website (which is now actually rather good - better than Vote Leave's, IMO) has an interesting voodoo poll on 'What excites you most about leaving the EU?'. It's currently showing:
Decide our own laws 35% Control our borders 44% The money we'd save 12% Our own global trade deals 10%
If I did, I'd be unimpressed. Making an impact is fine, doing it in a way which either scares or angers people is not.
A few years ago a videogames marketing campaign went awry when a firm sent something a bit dodgy (I forget if it were a safe, or maybe a ticking box) to journalists. Unsurprisingly, several of them contacted the police.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
The chances of taxpayers getting their money back from RBS is zero. Lloyds about 50-50.
Oh and we still guarantee their debts in the national accounts. A guarantee is a subsidy by other means.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Couldn't we compromise, and ask the banks to generate power using the hot air from the boardroom and the heat from all the roulette wheels whizzing round?
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
Are we selling Lloyds' shares at a profit? I was under the impression that so far they had been sold at a loss. The government bought at 73.9 pps. The market price has yet to recover to that, and many of these shares are to be sold at discounts.
Project Fear in full swing this morning, methinks the govt, who will have more data and info than anybody, are worried. It's noticeable however that the name calling on here from certain Remainers has waned.
Amongst the public I never hear the EU discussed after from by committed Leavers, which is very rare.
Low turnout, narrow Leave win, only those that care will be bothered to vote and there's not enough Remainers who'll miss the European football to vote.
Sounds like an echo of Sindy ref. Apparently No had No supporters at all if you believed the frothers.
I hear supporters of Remain talking fairly often, at work, at social gatherings, even down the pub watching the footy.
Jacks ARSE was pretty close to the pb NOJAM consensus. I would be more confident of the former than the latter in terms of past prediction. Probing the internals of Jacks ARSE is not for the fainthearted, but it does seem quite weighted by demographic breakdown.
.
.
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings--
."
The best put-down remains that of F E Smith, who was appearing before an exceptionally thick judge (so he must have been moron level, if current judges are anything to go by):
'I must tell you, Mr Smith, I am none the wiser after your comments.'
'Perhaps not, my lord,' shot back F E, 'but I trust your lordship is at least somewhat better informed.'
My person favourite was FE Smith in front of a judge who was a notable drunk:
"In mitigation, my client was a drunk as a judge"
"Surely you mean 'as drunk as a lord' Mr Smith?" said the judge
"As you wish, my lord"
FE Smith in cross:
"And how high can you lift your arm now?"
(wincing) "This high, sir."
"And how high could you lift your arm before the accident?"
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
This is a form of economic war. Once our steel industry is gone along with others around the world the chinese have removed competition and eventually will hike their prices. If the startup costs for new entryists were lower I would agree with you. But I am not arguing for all steel to be saved, just this one which has been regarded as well run. Unless you know otherwise?
As to the debts the chinese are clocking up - it does remind me of japanese debts.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
Are we selling Lloyds' shares at a profit? I was under the impression that so far they had been sold at a loss. The government bought at 73.9 pps. The market price has yet to recover to that, and many of these shares are to be sold at discounts.
I was going to buy some Lloyds stock with the Gov'ts generous proposed offer. I was miffed when George pulled out on it.
It's an easy mistake to make. They cited the HoC library figures for Norway's net contribution and then extrapolated the gross £22 per capita saving to the UK population. They didn't adjust their figures for our per capita GDP difference which is how the EU calculates each nation's gross contribution (famously forcing our government to pay an additional £1.7bn because of the black economy).
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it oe should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
This is a form of economic war. Once our steel industry is gone along with others around the world the chinese have removed competition and eventually will hike their prices. If the startup costs for new entryists were lower I would agree with you. But I am not arguing for all steel to be saved, just this one which has been regarded as well run. Unless you know otherwise?
As to the debts the chinese are clocking up - it does remind me of japanese debts.
We would be mad to end up in position were we need Chinese steel because we have no home-grown industry. Absolutely bonkers to put ourselves at such strategic risk.
OK THAT'S IT Definitely voting Remain. The post just arrived. In amongst the catalogues and other rubbish was a very serious, this is a tax demand- or summons-type brown envelope. Opening it with some trepidation, I discover it is from Leave effing EU. I'm IN.
It's an easy mistake to make. They cited the HoC library figures for Norway's net contribution and then extrapolated the gross £22 per capita saving to the UK population. They didn't adjust their figures for our per capita GDP difference which is how the EU calculates each nation's gross contribution (famously forcing our government to pay an additional £1.7bn because of the black economy).
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it out at the time as well.
You are right about the money anyway, I don't think the £6bn or £1.7bn really makes a big difference to the argument for me. It is, and has always been the direction of our trade, long run trade growth with the EU is -0.7% per year (-2.7% since 2011) and long term RoW trade growth is 5% per year. Not being able to form trade deals with fast growing economies and waiting for the EU to do it and then gut the parts of the deal we want (services) as the first option in order to get the deal done is something we should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
This is essentially the same position I have. The EEA gives us the best of both worlds IMO. Eventually we may be able to leverage our vast trade deficit into some kind of change to freedom of movement into selective freedom of movement where EU citizens looking to move here must have a definite job offer before they can come, but I can live without that.
Left-wing people used to like working-class people. Lots of left-wing people used to be working-class people. These people were known as socialists and joined trade unions. Sometimes working-class people used to frighten left-wing people, but they pretended that they weren’t frightened and were nice to them.
Left-wing people supported working-class people, gave them money, sat in rooms with them and wore badges to show that they cared more than right-wing people, who wore ties instead of badges and didn’t care.
Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy. Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.
Left wing people now think that working class people are: a) Simple and easily led b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own d) All of the above
Unless someone, anyone has a way to make this plant profitable, then no-one, private or government should touch it with a bargepole.
It is always a temptation to a foreign corporation To call upon a country and to say: -- "We're losing all our dough, and are quite prepared to go, Unless you pay us cash to make us stay."
If I did, I'd be unimpressed. Making an impact is fine, doing it in a way which either scares or angers people is not.
A few years ago a videogames marketing campaign went awry when a firm sent something a bit dodgy (I forget if it were a safe, or maybe a ticking box) to journalists. Unsurprisingly, several of them contacted the police.
I joined BetBright recently and after every losing bet they text you saying:
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
For the reasons I've stated before. I believe that in the long term 'leave' is inevitable, as the EU will creep (not sprint IMO) towards further integration. Cameron's deal indicates we won't be part of that, but I don't trust the EU on this matter.
The only way this will not happen is if we join the Euro and choose to be full members, and that's a no-no in my book.
If it's inevitable in the twenty to fifty timescale, I'd rather it was done now, but I'm more than a little concerned about aspects of leave.
The Leave.EU website (which is now actually rather good - better than Vote Leave's, IMO) has an interesting voodoo poll on 'What excites you most about leaving the EU?'. It's currently showing:
Decide our own laws 35% Control our borders 44% The money we'd save 12% Our own global trade deals 10%
That even 56% of Leave.EU's voodoo supporters aren't just on about immigration primarily is really reassuring
Left-wing people used to like working-class people. Lots of left-wing people used to be working-class people. These people were known as socialists and joined trade unions. Sometimes working-class people used to frighten left-wing people, but they pretended that they weren’t frightened and were nice to them.
Left-wing people supported working-class people, gave them money, sat in rooms with them and wore badges to show that they cared more than right-wing people, who wore ties instead of badges and didn’t care.
Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy. Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.
Left wing people now think that working class people are: a) Simple and easily led b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own d) All of the above
form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
This is essentially the same position I have. The EEA gives us the best of both worlds IMO. Eventually we may be able to leverage our vast trade deficit into some kind of change to freedom of movement into selective freedom of movement where EU citizens looking to move here must have a definite job offer before they can come, but I can live without that.
Exactly so. We are on the same page. If only the rest of Leave agreed (or at least was willing to go along with this for now) I think this argument could be won.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
Both Vote Leave and Leave.EU are campaigning on platforms which are not consistent with an EEA-style deal. And, to be fair to them, neither seems to be claiming otherwise. It's only on here that the EEA option is seen as the goal.
Anyone want to explain the EU rules about state intervention in businesses?
e.g. could 10,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot lose their jobs due to EU regulations?
The government could bail out the factory and other associated businesses if it wanted to. If the EU takes issue the government could easily point to the German bail out of Opel as precedent for such extraordinary moves.
Tay was amazing, it was a imitation of human thought without a PC filter being fed selective information from a group of arseholes to make Microsoft look bad.
Unless someone, anyone has a way to make this plant profitable, then no-one, private or government should touch it with a bargepole.
It is always a temptation to a foreign corporation To call upon a country and to say: -- "We're losing all our dough, and are quite prepared to go, Unless you pay us cash to make us stay."
Well certainly Tata shouldn't get anything. If it were done at all, t'were done 'penny in the pound' Ken Bates style
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
I think it would help Leave if there was consistency on this point but it is clear that the choice given to the people is binary: in or out? What out means will therefore have to be resolved afterwards. For me, I accept that membership of the EEA involves acceptance of the 4 freedoms (do you think this could win over Nicky? Maybe not) but I think it is a price worth paying for essential trade combined with far more freedom to suit ourselves.
Anyone want to explain the EU rules about state intervention in businesses?
e.g. could 10,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot lose their jobs due to EU regulations?
The government could bail out the factory and other associated businesses if it wanted to. If the EU takes issue the government could easily point to the German bail out of Opel as precedent for such extraordinary moves.
Pre any hint of a Referendum, HMG could happily blame non intervention on EU rules.
Left-wing people used to like working-class people. Lots of left-wing people used to be working-class people. These people were known as socialists and joined trade unions. Sometimes working-class people used to frighten left-wing people, but they pretended that they weren’t frightened and were nice to them.
Left-wing people supported working-class people, gave them money, sat in rooms with them and wore badges to show that they cared more than right-wing people, who wore ties instead of badges and didn’t care.
Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy. Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.
Left wing people now think that working class people are: a) Simple and easily led b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own d) All of the above
I would add...
e) racist / bigoted i.e. Gillian Duffy
They should also add: The Working Class used to go to the football every Saturday, but now they can't afford to.
Anyone want to explain the EU rules about state intervention in businesses?
e.g. could 10,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot lose their jobs due to EU regulations?
The government could bail out the factory and other associated businesses if it wanted to. If the EU takes issue the government could easily point to the German bail out of Opel as precedent for such extraordinary moves.
Or Renault or Peugeot or about 100 of their suppliers.
Tay was amazing, it was a imitation of human thought without a PC filter being fed selective information from a group of arseholes to make Microsoft look bad.
Since when did the company that gave us Windows XP and Windows 8 need help to look bad?
So what about this brilliant post-Brexit trade deal with China? When we demand an end to them dumping cheap steel here presumably they'll cave immediately.
A Treasury spokesman gave us the following statement:
“The methodology used by Rothschild is the same as that used by the independent Office of Budget Responsibility in their analysis of the government’s interventions in the banking sector, and by the US Treasury.
“The Rothschild report clearly sets out that [UK] taxpayers can expect to get back £14 billion more than they put into the banks, if you take into account the sales the government has authorised so far, the fees the government has received, the outstanding payments, and the value of the remaining shares.”
Left-wing people have “enlightened comedians” who make jokes on “panel games”. These are broadcast on the television and BBC Radio 4.
The enlightened comedians make people laugh at right-wing people, whom they consider stupid. In the olden days, comedians made jokes about Irish people, but these comedians weren’t clever like the enlightened comedians.
Instead of the Irish people, the enlightened comedians make jokes about working-class people. Because they care, they use special words like “Glaswegians”, “Sun readers” and “UKIP supporters”, so the working-class people will not notice.
Fraser Nelson Why is Gus O’Donnell misrepresenting EU rules? Britain needs to give 2yrs notice of leaving - can be given any time. Timing in our hands.
Hasn't Cameron said that he will immediately give notice of our intention to leave following a Leave vote?
O'Donnell's comments illustrate perfectly that the defeatist malaise that has afflicted the FCO for the last 50 years, has infected the rest of the Civil Service.
The "it's too difficult, we're too weak, weedy, want to go home and see our mummies" attitude being displayed, rather than accepting that they just need to knuckle down and do some work is quite pathetic.
And never mind that he was party to the initial negotiations over the 2 year deal in the first place.
O'Donnell wasn't at the FCO.
He made an even more impressive mess of running first the Treasury and then the Cabinet Office in the 2000s than the FCO did over the Constitution/Lisbon though, so the point can stand.
The Cabinet Secretary is the PM's chief adviser, so it's fair to assume he had input.
I am close to one former Cabinet Secretary (not G.O.D.!) and he wouldn't have let something this significant go through without his grubby mitts all over it.
Anyone want to explain the EU rules about state intervention in businesses?
e.g. could 10,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot lose their jobs due to EU regulations?
The government could bail out the factory and other associated businesses if it wanted to. If the EU takes issue the government could easily point to the German bail out of Opel as precedent for such extraordinary moves.
Pre any hint of a Referendum, HMG could happily blame non intervention on EU rules.
I watched an interesting thing yesterday where a new known US liberal tv guy talks about how far too many "progressives" are now actually the "regressives". I believe he got that from Maajid Nawaz.
He cites the incident on Bill Maher show, another famous liberal, where Ben Affleck loses his shit at Maher and a famous philosopher and just screams racist \ homophobe at them. It is worth watching as it is exactly how "SAFEEEEEEE SPACEEEEEE" crowd try to shut down any debate or criticism of any idea they don't agree with.
Cringe....doesn't that idiot ex-BBC comms guy wander around with his Beats.....
Beats the best example of marketing over product. Likes of Sennheiser far superior products.
If you take certain headphone brands apart, you'll find that they contain inanimate lumps of metal to make them heavier. Why? Because we associate weight with quality.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
When you say there is no free market in energy, what do you mean? The price of oil, or LNG is the price. Those that have attempted to distort the price of these commodities through subsidies have wrought terrible economic damage on their economies.
Frankly, the view that the government should choose which industries (and by definition companies) should survive is scary. Corporatism sucks. The government is a terrible allocator of capital.
Let the free market work.
There's an argument for government preferring domestic energy provision and raising taxes to pay the premium vs the free market price. Think of it as an insurance policy premium
Left-wing people used to like working-class people. Lots of left-wing people used to be working-class people. These people were known as socialists and joined trade unions. Sometimes working-class people used to frighten left-wing people, but they pretended that they weren’t frightened and were nice to them.
Left-wing people supported working-class people, gave them money, sat in rooms with them and wore badges to show that they cared more than right-wing people, who wore ties instead of badges and didn’t care.
Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy. Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.
Left wing people now think that working class people are: a) Simple and easily led b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own d) All of the above
I would add...
e) racist / bigoted i.e. Gillian Duffy
They should also add: The Working Class used to go to the football every Saturday, but now they can't afford to.
Will there be postal voting for this referendum? Looks like I shall be out of the country on the day of destiny.
Yes, you can apply for a postal vote. It'll be easier than normal because they already know what to print on the ballot papers so they can mail them out earlier.
I better apply today then! Last week I received a letter from the Home Office posted in early December! Fortunately it was only for information and didn't require a prompt reply!
Man, email is slow over there! You don't use BT do you?
A Treasury spokesman gave us the following statement:
“The methodology used by Rothschild is the same as that used by the independent Office of Budget Responsibility in their analysis of the government’s interventions in the banking sector, and by the US Treasury.
“The Rothschild report clearly sets out that [UK] taxpayers can expect to get back £14 billion more than they put into the banks, if you take into account the sales the government has authorised so far, the fees the government has received, the outstanding payments, and the value of the remaining shares.”
So according to two organisations that have been repeatedly incorrect about financial events (be it through mendacity or incompetence or both) we might potentially make a modest cash profit at some unspecified future date.
Have we, or have we not, sold off existing shares at a loss, which was my original point?
I am not an economist or a banker, and I accept I could be wrong. However, I'm going to require more than dubious figures from Rothschild and reported "independent sources" via the Treasury, neither of which I trust an inch, before I'm satisfied that we're in the black so far.
A rational argument could of course be made that whatever the losses, they are less than if RBS and HBOS had crashed entirely. I'm just dubious about the idea of selling these shares off at a loss for what seem to me to be no good reason when ten years from now we might get a profit.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
I think it would help Leave if there was consistency on this point but it is clear that the choice given to the people is binary: in or out? What out means will therefore have to be resolved afterwards. For me, I accept that membership of the EEA involves acceptance of the 4 freedoms (do you think this could win over Nicky? Maybe not) but I think it is a price worth paying for essential trade combined with far more freedom to suit ourselves.
In principle what's not to like; in practice, I would feel very nervous being shut out of the latter and voting rounds of EU Fin Regs. End of the world? Obvs not, but IMO we would slightly be playing with fire, given the importance of that industry to our national interest.
Cringe....doesn't that idiot ex-BBC comms guy wander around with his Beats.....
Beats the best example of marketing over product. Likes of Sennheiser far superior products.
If you take certain headphone brands apart, you'll find that they contain inanimate lumps of metal to make them heavier. Why? Because we associate weight with quality.
Anybody who has listened to a good set of £300-400 headphone and then listen to a set of Beats will wonder how Beats ever sell a set...then you watch the sleak adverts with all the celebs and go arrhhhh I see.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
but it is clear that the choice given to the people is binary: in or out?
Although joining the EEA, to the casual observer will still seem like being part of the EU - contribution to the EU budget, free movement of labour, Brussels imposed regulation and law.
If there was a referendum post Brexit on whether to be in the EEA or fully out, then I could see an alliance of left wing Labour, UKIP and the protectionist right wing voting us out of the EEA also.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
This is a form of economic war. Once our steel industry is gone along with others around the world the chinese have removed competition and eventually will hike their prices. If the startup costs for new entryists were lower I would agree with you. But I am not arguing for all steel to be saved, just this one which has been regarded as well run. Unless you know otherwise?
As to the debts the chinese are clocking up - it does remind me of japanese debts.
And, TBF, they are not claiming it is a "saving" but as money they can spend on their priorities - unlike what @Richard_Nabavi claimed they said
Err, they say:
Seventh, we will be able to spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and education.
There's only one possible way of interpreting that, namely that we would have saved £18bn a year from our EU contributions. Which is, to put it gently, utter nonsense in the EEA option, and highly misleading in any other option.
No, they are saying that they will be able to spend £18bn on "our priorities". This isn't a saving - it's a reallocation of resources.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Anti-EU pro-free-trade people should pay attention to this. They're always talking like if the UK leaves the EU it'll be some kind of bold, open, free-trading nation. But all it takes is a single adverse news cycle and people from all over the political spectrum are demanding tariff barriers. It won't all be for things in non-marginal constituencies like steel production.
Cringe....doesn't that idiot ex-BBC comms guy wander around with his Beats.....
Beats the best example of marketing over product. Likes of Sennheiser far superior products.
If you take certain headphone brands apart, you'll find that they contain inanimate lumps of metal to make them heavier. Why? Because we associate weight with quality.
Anybody who has listened to a good set of £300-400 headphone and then listen to a set of Beats will wonder how Beats ever sell a set...then you watch the sleak adverts with all the celebs and go arrhhhh I see.
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24% USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Must be the fault of Westminster/UK Govt/Cameron...... Or is it the fault of being in the EU?
I agree. But what does this plant for energy. Electric or coal? If the latter then we needed to also retain some of the coal industry.
This board scares me sometimes. Businessmen begging politicians for protections in return for taxpayers money, on the basis of their industry being "strategic".
Let me be clear. i am not arguing for protections for steel. Just level the playing field with the Chinese subsidies through tariffs and remove as far as possible the climate change eco burdens that are loaded on the industry.
No.
Just because they are messing up their economy through subsidies, doesn't mean we should. Distort price signals at your peril.
As has been pointed out before all eneergy is subsidised to some extent. Wind, nuclear, solar.
As for banks.........
Government lending money at market rates to banks so they can overcome a liquidity crisis is not a subsidy. Similarly injecting equity into banks is not a subsidy provided the shares are subsequently sold at a profit, as is the case with Lloyds and likely also with RBS.
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
The chances of taxpayers getting their money back from RBS is zero. Lloyds about 50-50.
Oh and we still guarantee their debts in the national accounts. A guarantee is a subsidy by other means.
Don't we charge a fee for the guarantee? We certainly used to.
@ydoethur ( can't make "quote" work). Your comment to hold on to shares for another 10 years -- selling now even at a loss could reduce the amount of debt we are having to pay interest on and could be significant considering the amounts recouped could be billions.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Cringe....doesn't that idiot ex-BBC comms guy wander around with his Beats.....
Beats the best example of marketing over product. Likes of Sennheiser far superior products.
If you take certain headphone brands apart, you'll find that they contain inanimate lumps of metal to make them heavier. Why? Because we associate weight with quality.
Anybody who has listened to a good set of £300-400 headphone and then listen to a set of Beats will wonder how Beats ever sell a set...then you watch the sleak adverts with all the celebs and go arrhhhh I see.
Beats sound quality is just poor vs the competition for the premium price you are paying. If you have only ever heard £20 headphones and want your music to sound like you are in a club with overpowering bass, then you probably think they sound fine. But they just aren't even close to the build and sound quality of big brands like Sony, Sennheiser, Audio Technica, plus there are loads of smaller brands who put out exceptional products when you start spending £300-400.
Surely the reason for the tightening in the polls is clear?
The "Gold Standard Leader Ratings" show that the most enthusiastic LEAVE leader is also rated the best (-2), while the head of the REMAIN campaign is a sorry -25
OGH has long championed these ratings as a better indicator than mere polls, I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned more
It's an easy mistake to make. They cited the HoC library figures for Norway's net contribution and then extrapolated the gross £22 per capita saving to the UK population. They didn't adjust their figures for our per capita GDP difference which is how the EU calculates each nation's gross contribution (famously forcing our government to pay an additional £1.7bn because of the black economy).
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it oe should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
Well, in a democratic society, the supporters of Leave.EU and Vote Leave have different views. But in any event the decision will be made by the elected government of the UK
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
It's an easy mistake to make. They cited tnal £1.7bn because of the black economy).
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it oe should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
Well, in a democratic society, the supporters of Leave.EU and Vote Leave have different views. But in any event the decision will be made by the elected government of the UK
Yes of course and as I said upthread, the people will speak and by definition won't be wrong.
But somehow I think this confusion or lack of clarity will not aid peace and harmony following a Leave result in June.
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it oe should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
Well, in a democratic society, the supporters of Leave.EU and Vote Leave have different views. But in any event the decision will be made by the elected government of the UK
Quite amazing that people demand that LEAVE have a solid, agreed upon strategy for Brexit, when no one who favours LEAVE would be in any position whatsoever to be able to make good on it. All they can do is outline possible scenarios
Cameron, on the other hand, will be PM the day after the vote, and should be outlining what he would do in either circumstance
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
"The opening of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station should be pushed back at least two years and its reactor technology redesigned, according to a letter from senior engineers on the project."
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
But, yes, they did make a very basic error in their paper. I seem to remember pointing it oe should not be part of. That's why I'm in favour of being in the EEA so we can continue to trade with the EU but regain our trade competency so we can also form trade deals with mid-sized developing nations.
...is a perfectly logical POV.
My issue with that is that in services, for example in financial services, the EU and EUR-business is a huge part of the City's activities. I believe we gain more from being part of the bandwagon, helping to spec it out, than off it. Plus I can't see a coherent reason why the ECB wouldn't want to repatriate eg EUR clearing business back to the EZ if we were no longer an EU member, but we have been round those houses many times before and the last thing I want to do is to send @DavidL running from here screaming.
I'll try not to be so sensitive today.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Avoiding my previous (and often-made) points about our input into the formulation of financial services regulations, which, simply, I don't think would be as great, although greater than zero, if we were in the EEA (there I made it again ), that of course leaves the freedoms.
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
Well, in a democratic society, the supporters of Leave.EU and Vote Leave have different views. But in any event the decision will be made by the elected government of the UK
Quite amazing that people demand that LEAVE have a solid, agreed upon strategy for Brexit, when no one who favours LEAVE would be in any position whatsoever to be able to make good on it. All they can do is outline possible scenarios
Cameron, on the other hand, will be PM the day after the vote, and should be outlining what he would do in either circumstance
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
No there is no direct comparison. Steel, produced worldwide, we can't compete with cost of production basing it in the UK, no matter who runs it.
Woolworths, there was a sound UK based business concept in a basically a cheap department store and others have shown it is possible to make it work.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
Woolies could have been transformed into a profitable business, but I expect that the investment needed and the view of the brand would be too much and too difficult that it would effectively be easier to start again/ allow competitors to take the void.
Similar to the steel works, the investment needed is just too high.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
No there is no direct comparison. Steel, produced worldwide, we can't compete with cost of production no matter who runs it. Woolworths, there was a sound UK based business concept in a basically a cheap department store and others have shown it is possible to make it work.
It is a failing business for one reason or another. Why didn't the government put a new management team into Woolies?
"The opening of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station should be pushed back at least two years and its reactor technology redesigned, according to a letter from senior engineers on the project."
I honestly can't think of anyone who is still in favour of this deal other than Osborne, the Chinese state and the French state.
It really is time to pull the plug on this. Just way too expensive. If we are going to have any serious users of energy in the UK with a future we cannot afford to commit ourselves to these kinds of rates when our competitors might be paying significantly less.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
No there is no direct comparison. Steel, produced worldwide, we can't compete with cost of production no matter who runs it. Woolworths, there was a sound UK based business concept in a basically a cheap department store and others have shown it is possible to make it work.
We can compete with Steel worldwide - if we roll back employee laws, minimum wages, energy taxes, etc.
@ydoethur ( can't make "quote" work). Your comment to hold on to shares for another 10 years -- selling now even at a loss could reduce the amount of debt we are having to pay interest on and could be significant considering the amounts recouped could be billions.
Fair point, had not thought of that. However, is the interest we are being charged greater than or equal to the value of the difference between purchase and sale price?
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
Woolworths was the example given by a caller into R5 this morning.
Actually Woolworths is a terrible example...their business was badly run and carried too many stock lines (and too many nobody wanted), but there is a market for a Woolworths type store...the likes of Wilko and B&M have shown that and grown massively since Woolies went under.
Again, as with FIFA, Woolworths is therefore a good example because there is a huge market for steel. Thing is, it is more cheaply produced (and arguably of higher quality) in other countries.
No there is no direct comparison. Steel, produced worldwide, we can't compete with cost of production no matter who runs it. Woolworths, there was a sound UK based business concept in a basically a cheap department store and others have shown it is possible to make it work.
It is a failing business for one reason or another. Why didn't the government put a new management team into Woolies?
Well the government made the right decision with Woolies...not sure they are going to with this plant, it is all going to be politics rather than economics that drives their decision.
Jihadist bombers who attacked Brussels airport and metro last week also searched the internet for information about Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel's office and home, reports say. Details were found on a computer dumped in a rubbish bin after the attacks.
Unconfirmed reports suggest it may have contained files with building plans as well as photos of the prime minister's office from the street.
Comments
Overall the Government/Bank of England has made a profit from loan interest, guarantee fees, equity injections and asset sales resulting from the bank rescues.
The best use for energy management remains as always to improve efficiency and therefore need less of it. If HMG pushed this line rather than the usual scary global warming bollocks they'd make more progress.
Definitely voting Remain.
The post just arrived. In amongst the catalogues and other rubbish was a very serious, this is a tax demand- or summons-type brown envelope.
Opening it with some trepidation, I discover it is from Leave effing EU.
I'm IN.
And a marvellous copper sulphate blue lake I flew over when learning to fly. It was beautiful. If dead.
I think you are being unrealistic in thinking that the UK would not be fully consulted about further regulation of the financial services market if we were a part of the EEA, London's dominance would make it crazy not to.
It might be different if we were not in the EEA. That is why I favour being in it and retaining benefits such as the single passport that are important to UK businesses that actually make money and pay taxes (unlike the steel industry, for example).
Decide our own laws 35%
Control our borders 44%
The money we'd save 12%
Our own global trade deals 10%
If I did, I'd be unimpressed. Making an impact is fine, doing it in a way which either scares or angers people is not.
A few years ago a videogames marketing campaign went awry when a firm sent something a bit dodgy (I forget if it were a safe, or maybe a ticking box) to journalists. Unsurprisingly, several of them contacted the police.
Oh and we still guarantee their debts in the national accounts. A guarantee is a subsidy by other means.
FE Smith in cross:
"And how high can you lift your arm now?"
(wincing) "This high, sir."
"And how high could you lift your arm before the accident?"
"Oh, this high sir"
"Thank you."
As to the debts the chinese are clocking up - it does remind me of japanese debts.
e.g. could 10,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot lose their jobs due to EU regulations?
The Leave EU pamphlet says we will "enhance our country's security by re-establishing the vital control of our borders." While Remain is not without its disingenuousness, Leave really does have to spell out, very clearly, its position on free movement of people and the EEA.
It's tragic..
smiley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/30/microsoft-revives-hitler-loving-sex-bot-tay-causing-confusion/
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/a-handy-guide-to-left-wing-people-for-the-under-10s/
To call upon a country and to say: --
"We're losing all our dough, and are quite prepared to go,
Unless you pay us cash to make us stay."
BET: XYZ1234, OUTCOME: LOSE
last time I use them...
The only way this will not happen is if we join the Euro and choose to be full members, and that's a no-no in my book.
If it's inevitable in the twenty to fifty timescale, I'd rather it was done now, but I'm more than a little concerned about aspects of leave.
There's nothing baffling about it.
e) racist / bigoted i.e. Gillian Duffy
https://twitter.com/JoshButler/status/715072657989853184
Emily Thornberry refused to confirm that Jeremy Corbyn accepts that Falkland Islanders should decide their own future @talkRADIO
I think it would help Leave if there was consistency on this point but it is clear that the choice given to the people is binary: in or out? What out means will therefore have to be resolved afterwards. For me, I accept that membership of the EEA involves acceptance of the 4 freedoms (do you think this could win over Nicky? Maybe not) but I think it is a price worth paying for essential trade combined with far more freedom to suit ourselves.
Now it's stuck.
The Sun
Straight outta Cam-pton: PM snapped in pair of Dr Dre’s Beats headphones https://t.co/SlTYAxVPsl https://t.co/oskLZTOVRI
e) racist / bigoted i.e. Gillian Duffy
They should also add: The Working Class used to go to the football every Saturday, but now they can't afford to.
See FACT CHECK [June 2015] at http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010
Conclusion
A Treasury spokesman gave us the following statement:
“The methodology used by Rothschild is the same as that used by the independent Office of Budget Responsibility in their analysis of the government’s interventions in the banking sector, and by the US Treasury.
“The Rothschild report clearly sets out that [UK] taxpayers can expect to get back £14 billion more than they put into the banks, if you take into account the sales the government has authorised so far, the fees the government has received, the outstanding payments, and the value of the remaining shares.”
Beats the best example of marketing over product. Likes of Sennheiser far superior products.
http://wortharguingfor.com/2016/02/24/left-wing-people/
I am close to one former Cabinet Secretary (not G.O.D.!) and he wouldn't have let something this significant go through without his grubby mitts all over it.
Remain are twisting in the wind here.
He cites the incident on Bill Maher show, another famous liberal, where Ben Affleck loses his shit at Maher and a famous philosopher and just screams racist \ homophobe at them. It is worth watching as it is exactly how "SAFEEEEEEE SPACEEEEEE" crowd try to shut down any debate or criticism of any idea they don't agree with.
Have we, or have we not, sold off existing shares at a loss, which was my original point?
I am not an economist or a banker, and I accept I could be wrong. However, I'm going to require more than dubious figures from Rothschild and reported "independent sources" via the Treasury, neither of which I trust an inch, before I'm satisfied that we're in the black so far.
A rational argument could of course be made that whatever the losses, they are less than if RBS and HBOS had crashed entirely. I'm just dubious about the idea of selling these shares off at a loss for what seem to me to be no good reason when ten years from now we might get a profit.
If there was a referendum post Brexit on whether to be in the EEA or fully out, then I could see an alliance of left wing Labour, UKIP and the protectionist right wing voting us out of the EEA also.
Call me picky, but that's pretty key. I'd never touch a Motorola phone after seeing those reviews.
The Steel industry is simply not feasible. The moment you nationalise/bail them out, then any failing industry can come and drain more and more resources into bad businesses. Why not this company, or that company.....etc etc.
The "Gold Standard Leader Ratings" show that the most enthusiastic LEAVE leader is also rated the best (-2), while the head of the REMAIN campaign is a sorry -25
OGH has long championed these ratings as a better indicator than mere polls, I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned more
But somehow I think this confusion or lack of clarity will not aid peace and harmony following a Leave result in June.
Cameron, on the other hand, will be PM the day after the vote, and should be outlining what he would do in either circumstance
Get ready for waves of celebs visiting Paris demanding Britain should take these people....
They don't offer pick and mix but that's about it.
"The opening of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station should be pushed back at least two years and its reactor technology redesigned, according to a letter from senior engineers on the project."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/hinkley-point-reactors-must-be-redesigned-say-engineers-d65z7b6v6
I honestly can't think of anyone who is still in favour of this deal other than Osborne, the Chinese state and the French state.
Argies have all the power and the Falklanders do all the sharing.
Woolworths, there was a sound UK based business concept in a basically a cheap department store and others have shown it is possible to make it work.
Similar to the steel works, the investment needed is just too high.
We can compete with Steel worldwide - if we roll back employee laws, minimum wages, energy taxes, etc.
But nobody wants to that for some reason...
Arf. Shouldn't coffee be banned on a strict interpretation of that law ?
Details were found on a computer dumped in a rubbish bin after the attacks.
Unconfirmed reports suggest it may have contained files with building plans as well as photos of the prime minister's office from the street.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35924363