I have been hearing about the need for a weaker pound for as long as I can remember, and, overall, in my lifetime the pound has become a lot weaker as has our industrial base. The plea that a weak pound helps exporters seems reasonable and is frequently parrotted; unfortunately it seems never to work out that way.
Contrast the UK's long term performance with that of Germany. The latter, until the advent of the Euro, built one of the most successful exporting economies on the planet on the basis of an ever strengthening currency. If Germany can do it why can't we?
I suspect the answer lies in the piss poor management and short-termism of our managerial class, but I stand to be corrected.
The answer to that is very simple, Britain has an overvalued currency when there is an asset bubble (it's the City effect).
Germany on the other hand entered the euro with a devalued currency, and the higher inflation rate in other eurozone countries kept the real value of the german currency cheaper than what would otherwise have been. Germany has a currency that is now 40% undervalued hence its gigantic trade surpluses that are bigger than even China's and is growing all the time since the eurozone was created.
The world cant compete with a country that has a permanent undervalued currency, thus as long as the eurozone exists world trade imbalances are going to grow until either the eurozone disintegrates or the world economy is hit so hard that free trade is abandoned, thus making currency manipulations obsolete.
The economic case for Brexit is also created by those imbalances, that Britain cannot compete on a plain level with Germany, due to the eurozone. The only way to fix this is either devalue sterling by 40% and fix it with the euro, or you leave the EU to restrict German imports.
House price problem = 100% due to insane political restrictions on the supply of land (aka Planning Laws). The trouble is that to resolve will require upsetting Middle England - the ones George needs to get elected party leader. Ditto pensioners, esp wealthy pensioners.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
"Dear Martin, can you please let us know the straight facts of what'll happen if we leave the EU?"
I've been swamped with many people asking me this question. So I want to answer.... "no I can't!" And if anyone else tells you they can, they are a liar.
The EU issue isn't black or white. I find it very frustrating that most politicians who are pro-EU say all elements of the EU are good; and most politicians who are anti say all elements are bad. Neither is true, like the rest of life it's a mix.
There are no simple answers. What'll happen if we leave is uncertain. What will happen if we stay is more certain - though still not without some questions and risks.
Don't read 'uncertain' as bad. Read it simply as uncertain.
It may be that leaving makes the UK a tiger economy in control of its own destiny, and we reap the benefits; or we end up on the outskirts of everything, ignored and struggling with trade. Or more likely somewhere in between.
You have to make this decision based on your political attitude to Europe, how risk averse you are and what your gut instinct tells you.
And even after that you need to accept you may make a good decision and have a bad outcome. Or make a bad decision then have a good one.
I have been hearing about the need for a weaker pound for as long as I can remember, and, overall, in my lifetime the pound has become a lot weaker as has our industrial base. The plea that a weak pound helps exporters seems reasonable and is frequently parrotted; unfortunately it seems never to work out that way.
Contrast the UK's long term performance with that of Germany. The latter, until the advent of the Euro, built one of the most successful exporting economies on the planet on the basis of an ever strengthening currency. If Germany can do it why can't we?
I suspect the answer lies in the piss poor management and short-termism of our managerial class, but I stand to be corrected.
I agree. Serial devaluation is just feeding the addiction rather than tackling the problem.
Before we get too carried away it might be worth pointing out that the trade-weighted value of sterling is currently not very far from where it was 30 years ago and also pretty close to the average level of the last 30 years.
Yikes. 7% of GDP is a new all time record, it's on the same level the USA reached just before they crashed in 2008.
The famous large double deficits (budget deficit and current account deficit) really point to an upcoming crash if there is not a major correction in economic policy.
If you are correct, Mr. Speedy, prepare for a crash. I think we get a recession every ten years or so, thus the next one should be due in 2017/18, and George Osborne is not going to change tack before then.
The one good thing about such a recession/crash is that it will finally lay bare Osborne's hopeless stewardship of the economy and his failure to "fix the roof while the sun shines" and thus finally put paid to his political ambitions.
4king dire numbers Mr L.
totally avoidable if action is taken, but then you look at how they handled the steel crisis.....
FFS, Mr. Brooke, the collapse of the steel industry was easily predictable and was in fact widely predicted. The policies pursued by Cameron and his clique were a major cause of that collapse. Then despite of all the warnings over many years the little wanker has the cheek to cut short his holiday and rush home for "crisis talks" as if we are to believe this is something out of the blue.
Grrrr, I despise Cameron and his chums I really do.
Very sad about Ronnie Corbett. He was hilarious (especially with Ronnie Barker) and also seemed a genuinely nice man. (Lurid posthumous scandal in 3, 2, 1....)
FFS, Mr. Brooke, the collapse of the steel industry was easily predictable and was in fact widely predicted. The policies pursued by Cameron and his clique were a major cause of that collapse.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
He's apparently authentically hardline evangelical, ticking every box you can think of. If you're in that camp, you aren't too bothered whether the candidate is a nice person - the question is will he stamp on abortion, will he crush the 'Muslim threat', will he appoint a militant evangelical to the Supreme Court? If he was nice that would be a bonus, but not essential to The Mission.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
This of course is a totally ludicrous argument - of that 93% the vast majority (hills/ mountains/ moors/ National Parks) is totally impractical and would need vast amounts of associated infrastructure (roads/ sewers/ electicity/ gas/ water supplies) as well as services such as shops/ restaurants/ hospitals/ fire stations/ police/ schools). Some of which has to be relatively close e.g. A&E)
Of the land that notionally COULD be built on - well a lot lies in flood plains and a lot is used as farmland. Every square kilometre of farmland built on means more people to feed and less acreage to feed them.
England is (barring some micro-states) the most densely populated country in Europe and 5th most densely populated country in the world.
40% of UK food is imported - expected to rise to 50% in the next 20 years. A few sunken large ships in strategic places would make the Berlin Airlift look like a large picnic.
Weejohnnie I agree. I'm pointing out that IF you have an open door immigration policy then it makes sense to let people build houses pretty freely - or you'll get rampant house price inflation and a 'generation rent' intergenerational social injustices. Personally I wouldn't have so much immigration. I'd go for an absolute inbound total target set at a level we can actually absorb, a points system to decide who is within that target, and enforce it. That probably isn't compatible with remaining in the EU. Remain = unaffordable housing or 'pave paradise and put up a parking lot'.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
Except it's not every square inch nor is it millions in a neighborhood. Other than both remarks being wrong you might have a point somewhere.
Weejohnnie I agree. I'm pointing out that IF you have an open door immigration policy then ...~~ you'll get rampant house price inflation and a 'generation rent' intergenerational social injustices.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
To suggest my neighbours are motivated by racism is a totally unjustiable slur. I’ve never seen any evidence of any hositlity to the ethnic minority members (including those in my family) who live, work or visit here. Greedy property developers .... you might have a point.
I couldn't give two hoots about farmland remaining as such. If people want to keep their farmland as farmland then great, nobody should say otherwise.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
"Dear Martin, can you please let us know the straight facts of what'll happen if we leave the EU?"
I've been swamped with many people asking me this question. So I want to answer.... "no I can't!" And if anyone else tells you they can, they are a liar.
The EU issue isn't black or white. I find it very frustrating that most politicians who are pro-EU say all elements of the EU are good; and most politicians who are anti say all elements are bad. Neither is true, like the rest of life it's a mix.
There are no simple answers. What'll happen if we leave is uncertain. What will happen if we stay is more certain - though still not without some questions and risks.
Don't read 'uncertain' as bad. Read it simply as uncertain.
It may be that leaving makes the UK a tiger economy in control of its own destiny, and we reap the benefits; or we end up on the outskirts of everything, ignored and struggling with trade. Or more likely somewhere in between.
You have to make this decision based on your political attitude to Europe, how risk averse you are and what your gut instinct tells you.
And even after that you need to accept you may make a good decision and have a bad outcome. Or make a bad decision then have a good one.
Martin
Fairest EUref comment I've seen yet.
I don't think it's entirely fair, in that the status quo option isn't on the table. There is no more certainty that things will remain the same in or out of the EU, because the EU is heading towards the next stage of integration (that will be required to place the fiscal compact and other necessary measures for fiscal stability into the TFEU).
Sadiq Khan's bid to be London Mayor was dealt a blow today as hard-Left activists admitted backing him to “strengthen” Jeremy Corbyn.
The Standard can reveal that leaders of the controversial Momentum group told activists to support the Labour candidate because defeat in London on May 5 would “undermine” his party’s leader. Tories seized on the revelation by taunting: “Vote Khan, Get Corbyn.”
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
England is (barring some micro-states) the most densely populated country in Europe and 5th most densely populated country in the world.
We can still use Scotland and Wales then, at least?
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
To suggest my neighbours are motivated by racism is a totally unjustiable slur. I’ve never seen any evidence of any hositlity to the ethnic minority members (including those in my family) who live, work or visit here. Greedy property developers .... you might have a point.
Who mentioned 'race'? Not me.
Seems to be the standard response to anyone concerned by the increase in the numbers of people settling here from overseas. Brand them a racist and close down any sensible discussion.
Sadiq Khan's bid to be London Mayor was dealt a blow today as hard-Left activists admitted backing him to “strengthen” Jeremy Corbyn.
The Standard can reveal that leaders of the controversial Momentum group told activists to support the Labour candidate because defeat in London on May 5 would “undermine” his party’s leader. Tories seized on the revelation by taunting: “Vote Khan, Get Corbyn.”
In other breaking news, Leicester fans have scandalously admitted they hope the team beats Southampton this weekend in order to "strengthen" their chances of winning the league.
Sadiq Khan's bid to be London Mayor was dealt a blow today as hard-Left activists admitted backing him to “strengthen” Jeremy Corbyn.
The Standard can reveal that leaders of the controversial Momentum group told activists to support the Labour candidate because defeat in London on May 5 would “undermine” his party’s leader. Tories seized on the revelation by taunting: “Vote Khan, Get Corbyn.”
In other breaking news, Leicester fans have scandalously admitted they hope the team beats Southampton this weekend in order to "strengthen" their chances of winning the league.
At least we know The Standard will give Zac the same level of support they gave Boris
A couple of weeks ago I drove from Glasgow to Bradford and then took the train from Leeds to London. I often drive from Surrey to Worthing. So I have seen most of the country out of the window (apart for the wild bits north of the M8). It's pretty empty! I have lived in Beijing, Manila, Lagos, Hong Kong and the Hague- these are crowded places. (Hague not so much, actually, just flat and dull). England is still a green and pleasant land and building on the brown bits wouldn't do any harm if we fill the space with those who fit in and will not be a drain. (Non English speaking angry traumatised Muslims wouldn't get any points on the Patrick points system - God I must be an out and out baby eater!).
Sadiq Khan's bid to be London Mayor was dealt a blow today as hard-Left activists admitted backing him to “strengthen” Jeremy Corbyn.
The Standard can reveal that leaders of the controversial Momentum group told activists to support the Labour candidate because defeat in London on May 5 would “undermine” his party’s leader. Tories seized on the revelation by taunting: “Vote Khan, Get Corbyn.”
In other breaking news, Leicester fans have scandalously admitted they hope the team beats Southampton this weekend in order to "strengthen" their chances of winning the league.
"Dealt a blow" - stock hyperbole journalism phrase #62534
Donald Trump was "dealt a blow" after "it was revealed" his campaign manager was charged with battery "the Standard has learnt".
Mr. Royale, that Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch is reportedly one of the reasons the Two Ronnies ended. Corbett (according to Mel Smith) liked it a lot, but Barker really hated it.
Sadiq Khan's bid to be London Mayor was dealt a blow today as hard-Left activists admitted backing him to “strengthen” Jeremy Corbyn.
The Standard can reveal that leaders of the controversial Momentum group told activists to support the Labour candidate because defeat in London on May 5 would “undermine” his party’s leader. Tories seized on the revelation by taunting: “Vote Khan, Get Corbyn.”
In other breaking news, Leicester fans have scandalously admitted they hope the team beats Southampton this weekend in order to "strengthen" their chances of winning the league.
At least we know The Standard will give Zac the same level of support they gave Boris
Yup, that's going to swing a lot of votes as well, the Standard is easily the number one source of news in London.
I couldn't give two hoots about farmland remaining as such. If people want to keep their farmland as farmland then great, nobody should say otherwise.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
I agree up to a point, though I think that considerations of scenery and the environment can reasonably constrain extreme ideas - I wouldn't really propose building 100 factories on the Downs even if it made economic sense.
But more to the point, it's established, explicit Government policy NOT to attempt to promote self-sufficiency in food.- the assumption that we can often import it more cheaply than we can make it is deeply embedded in Government policy and has been for decades. So those who argue that farms must be protected at all costs have a big, established policy to overcome.
Would a few strategically sunken ships make us all starve? Probably not, I'd think. A prolonged war involving the sea lanes would, as it nearly did in WW2, but thanks to the EU or whatever else one ascribes it, the likelihood of that seems to be near zero these days. Any big war we were in with the likes of Russia would be...short.
Yikes. 7% of GDP is a new all time record, it's on the same level the USA reached just before they crashed in 2008.
The famous large double deficits (budget deficit and current account deficit) really point to an upcoming crash if there is not a major correction in economic policy.
If you are correct, Mr. Speedy, prepare for a crash. I think we get a recession every ten years or so, thus the next one should be due in 2017/18, and George Osborne is not going to change tack before then.
The one good thing about such a recession/crash is that it will finally lay bare Osborne's hopeless stewardship of the economy and his failure to "fix the roof while the sun shines" and thus finally put paid to his political ambitions.
4king dire numbers Mr L.
totally avoidable if action is taken, but then you look at how they handled the steel crisis.....
FFS, Mr. Brooke, the collapse of the steel industry was easily predictable and was in fact widely predicted. The policies pursued by Cameron and his clique were a major cause of that collapse. Then despite of all the warnings over many years the little wanker has the cheek to cut short his holiday and rush home for "crisis talks" as if we are to believe this is something out of the blue.
Grrrr, I despise Cameron and his chums I really do.
Don't be unfair.
He was only going on holiday to give him "time to think". He might as well come home now he's finished with that
"Dear Martin, can you please let us know the straight facts of what'll happen if we leave the EU?"
I've been swamped with many people asking me this question. So I want to answer.... "no I can't!" And if anyone else tells you they can, they are a liar.
The EU issue isn't black or white. I find it very frustrating that most politicians who are pro-EU say all elements of the EU are good; and most politicians who are anti say all elements are bad. Neither is true, like the rest of life it's a mix.
There are no simple answers. What'll happen if we leave is uncertain. What will happen if we stay is more certain - though still not without some questions and risks.
Don't read 'uncertain' as bad. Read it simply as uncertain.
It may be that leaving makes the UK a tiger economy in control of its own destiny, and we reap the benefits; or we end up on the outskirts of everything, ignored and struggling with trade. Or more likely somewhere in between.
You have to make this decision based on your political attitude to Europe, how risk averse you are and what your gut instinct tells you.
And even after that you need to accept you may make a good decision and have a bad outcome. Or make a bad decision then have a good one.
Martin
Fairest EUref comment I've seen yet.
I don't think it's entirely fair, in that the status quo option isn't on the table. There is no more certainty that things will remain the same in or out of the EU, because the EU is heading towards the next stage of integration (that will be required to place the fiscal compact and other necessary measures for fiscal stability into the TFEU).
Risk exists in equal measure either way.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
"Dear Martin, can you please let us know the straight facts of what'll happen if we leave the EU?"
I've been swamped with many people asking me this question. So I want to answer.... "no I can't!" And if anyone else tells you they can, they are a liar.
The EU issue isn't black or white. I find it very frustrating that most politicians who are pro-EU say all elements of the EU are good; and most politicians who are anti say all elements are bad. Neither is true, like the rest of life it's a mix.
There are no simple answers. What'll happen if we leave is uncertain. What will happen if we stay is more certain - though still not without some questions and risks.
Don't read 'uncertain' as bad. Read it simply as uncertain.
It may be that leaving makes the UK a tiger economy in control of its own destiny, and we reap the benefits; or we end up on the outskirts of everything, ignored and struggling with trade. Or more likely somewhere in between.
You have to make this decision based on your political attitude to Europe, how risk averse you are and what your gut instinct tells you.
And even after that you need to accept you may make a good decision and have a bad outcome. Or make a bad decision then have a good one.
Martin
Fairest EUref comment I've seen yet.
I don't think it's entirely fair, in that the status quo option isn't on the table. There is no more certainty that things will remain the same in or out of the EU, because the EU is heading towards the next stage of integration (that will be required to place the fiscal compact and other necessary measures for fiscal stability into the TFEU).
Risk exists in equal measure either way.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
Well it's not just that, the fiscal compact looks dead in the water anyway like the FTT.
I couldn't give two hoots about farmland remaining as such. If people want to keep their farmland as farmland then great, nobody should say otherwise.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
Farmland with planning permission is worth a lot more than farmland without. Are you in favour of unplanned housing development? What about roads, schools etc etc?
"Dear Martin, can you please let us know the straight facts of what'll happen if we leave the EU?"
I've been swamped with many people asking me this question. So I want to answer.... "no I can't!" And if anyone else tells you they can, they are a liar.
The EU issue isn't black or white. I find it very frustrating that most politicians who are pro-EU say all elements of the EU are good; and most politicians who are anti say all elements are bad. Neither is true, like the rest of life it's a mix.
There are no simple answers. What'll happen if we leave is uncertain. What will happen if we stay is more certain - though still not without some questions and risks.
Don't read 'uncertain' as bad. Read it simply as uncertain.
It may be that leaving makes the UK a tiger economy in control of its own destiny, and we reap the benefits; or we end up on the outskirts of everything, ignored and struggling with trade. Or more likely somewhere in between.
You have to make this decision based on your political attitude to Europe, how risk averse you are and what your gut instinct tells you.
And even after that you need to accept you may make a good decision and have a bad outcome. Or make a bad decision then have a good one.
Martin
Fairest EUref comment I've seen yet.
I don't think it's entirely fair, in that the status quo option isn't on the table. There is no more certainty that things will remain the same in or out of the EU, because the EU is heading towards the next stage of integration (that will be required to place the fiscal compact and other necessary measures for fiscal stability into the TFEU).
Risk exists in equal measure either way.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
Well it's not just that, the fiscal compact looks dead in the water anyway like the FTT.
It was a pretty bizarre doc. I mean that really was closer union by the back door...amazing that Dave got such stick for rejecting it.
I couldn't give two hoots about farmland remaining as such. If people want to keep their farmland as farmland then great, nobody should say otherwise.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
We should keep some kind of strategic reserve agricultural capacity. Obviously we can never be self-sufficient as a nation for food production but having some kind of reserve makes sense.
There is, of course, a massive difference between being self-sufficient in food and having food security. Security is better served by having diversity of supply. You import more and add more economic value elsewhere with your land than in the agricultural sector. It would be hard or impossible to physically blockade the UK and starve us out. As long as the economy is in good shape - good enough that other countries want our money - then we are food secure. It's when we might have the worry of an economic collapse that the additional worry of starving would then come. But such an outcome would play out very slowly - and the economics of agriculture would kick back in long before we got near starving. So I think government policy is about right on this one. Forget UK self sufficiency in food and go for efficient land use.
Donald Trump may have gone from a joke to a nightmare but is he just the latest incarnation of Ancient Athens’ favourite bad boy? This week’s Spectator Ancient and Modern column compares the wannabe prez to Cleon, who took over after the death of Pericles in 429 BC “with no known political or military experience behind him”.
“It was this ‘brutal and insolent’ speaker, said the historian Plutarch, who introduced shouting and abuse and excessive gesturing, encouraging other speakers to behave equally irresponsibly.” Little detail is available on whether or not he had a combover or a permatan, though.
It was a pretty bizarre doc. I mean that really was closer union by the back door...amazing that Dave got such stick for rejecting it.
Yeah, the word is that even the Germans feel stupid for proposing such an idea now which is why it's dead. The countries may have ratified it but not a single fine or punishment has been levied in accordance with the new rules. Not only was it a complete waste of time, it also pushed the people of this country away from the EU because our PM was forced to play the same "bad guy" role who blocks these stupid, ill thought out agreements. If we do leave then a different country will have to take up that same role and be the voice of reason against overwhelming stupidity at these summits and it will poison their relationship with the other nations just as ours has been.
Mr. Eagles, must admit, I've grown rusty on that period.
However, a Wiki check reveals I do actually know him (for some reason I had his name as Cleomenes in my mind). He was the chap that the excellent Brasidas thwarted (around Amphipolis, or thereabouts).
Really not sure what to do with my large Paul Ryan POTUS position.
Over on predictit, he's a bonkers 7/1 for the nomination and (arguably generous) 18-20/1 for potus.
Betfair's ~25/1 for the nomination seems around the right ballpark, which to me means his potus price of ~110/1 looks too generous. Would he really be 3/1 vs Hillary? I'd have him at 6/4 max.
Think i'll just hold for now. If his price falls below 50/1, i'll reconsider laying.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
There was a document released called the Fundamental Law. This set up a method by which the EU was split into two separate entities, one a core Eurozone and the rest as 'Associate members'. It was a prototype treaty from the Spinelli federalist group.
The problem with this is that the compulsion in the treaty to eventually join the central core was not removed (so only us and the Danes are technically free of it). It would slowly move us to a point of no influence at all - with the EZ moving forward to full political integration. We'd be parked on the outside, still subject to all the political rulings but with very little pull.
Read with the 5 presidents report, then I think that was designed to be the 'windows 10' (last full treaty) moment for the EU, and I think it was also on the cards at one stage for 2017, which is why the referendum date is the same. We should have been voting on associate membership. But the timetable slipped due to the multiple crises and the German/French election timetable.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
There was a document released called the Fundamental Law. This set up a method by which the EU was split into two separate entities, one a core Eurozone and the rest as 'Associate members'. It was a prototype treaty from the Spinelli federalist group.
The problem with this is that the compulsion in the treaty to eventually join the central core was not removed (so only us and the Danes are technically free of it). It would slowly move us to a point of no influence at all - with the EZ moving forward to full political integration. We'd be parked on the outside, still subject to all the political rulings but with very little pull.
Read with the 5 presidents report, then I think that was designed to be the 'windows 10' (last full treaty) moment for the EU, and I think it was also on the cards at one stage for 2017, which is why the referendum date is the same. We should have been voting on associate membership. But the timetable slipped due to the multiple crises and the German/French election timetable.
Really not sure what to do with my large Paul Ryan POTUS position.
Over on predictit, he's a bonkers 7/1 for the nomination and (arguably generous) 18-20/1 for potus.
Betfair's ~25/1 for the nomination seems around the right ballpark, which to me means his potus price of ~110/1 looks too generous. Would he really be 3/1 vs Hillary? I'd have him at 6/4 max.
Think i'll just hold for now. If his price falls below 50/1, i'll reconsider laying.
Anyone except Trump and the GOP is finished.
This is exactly what the neo-con artists and their open borders toadies have wanted all along, so that their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, can win. All that is left for them to do is hand pick a sacrificial lamb, like McCain and Romney.
This has happened because the GOP is nothing but a lobbyist check cashing service disguised as a political party.
About 10 million Republicans will leave the party in protest. I have already decided that is what I will do. I will vote for NO Republican at any level except Kelli Ward because she’s running against McCain. Not a dogcatcher, not a commissioner, no one.
I worked really hard to get Rep. Brat elected to congress and to beat Cantor. I believe the Cantor defeat was the election heard around the world. Nobody paid attention and it was forgotten immediately. But in actuality it was the opening volley in this upheaval. I will vote for Rep. Brat again but that is it. No other GOPers.
Interesting that Romney and Paul Ryan lost Wisconsin by 7 points. In 00 and 04 the Democrats won by less than 1 point.
Not sure I agree that a decline in SNP/Nicola is inevitable even in the medium term.
The SNP has risen substantially in popularity since it gained office in 2007. Salmond stayed at positive popularity ratings throughout his eight years in office, almost unheard of in a democratic system. However, Sturgeon shows every sign of doing the same. The new powers will not change that dynamic since the SNP have sensibly avoided the daftness of Labour and Greens in suggesting hiking every tax rate (or the indirect tax bombshells of the Tories in £9,000 tuition fees) and instead opted for a relatively mild redistribution of income tax and Council Tax towards the lower paid.
The NATS retain a radical cutting edge on the issues of Trident, renewable power, land reform and of course independence. They are despite an incredibly hostile old fashioned press a competent Government by UK standards - compare for example their solution on saving Scottish steel to the total confusion of the Tories. On that formula barring accidents (and events dear boy events) the SNP is set for a further long run of dominance.
The SNP owns the flag and has made sure to do nothing that will alienate those who vote in elections. That's why it has said plenty about food banks and austerity, but has done nothing practical to alleviate either. As a result, it will govern for many years to come. Whether that actually leads to independence, though, is another thing entirely.
'Not doing very much' is actually not that bad a government policy.
The question remains how long the Zoomers can put up with the gap between the 'social democratic' rhetoric and the 'evil bastard Tory' policy.......
As long as the evil Tories and inept Labour clowns continue as they are, so will be a long long time.
William Hill @sharpeangle Mayor of London - most First Pref votes, excl Khan/Goldsmith: 13/8 Whittle (UKIP): 9/4 Berry (Green); 11/4 Pidgeon (LD); 9/2 Galloway (Resp)
William Hill @sharpeangle Mayor of London - most First Pref votes, excl Khan/Goldsmith: 13/8 Whittle (UKIP): 9/4 Berry (Green); 11/4 Pidgeon (LD); 9/2 Galloway (Resp)
William Hill @sharpeangle Mayor of London - most First Pref votes, excl Khan/Goldsmith: 13/8 Whittle (UKIP): 9/4 Berry (Green); 11/4 Pidgeon (LD); 9/2 Galloway (Resp)
I was just in the local park when a young woman in her late teens / early twenties who was listening to the radio on her phone said: "Is it true Ronnie Corbett has died?"
I said I didn't know, and a few minutes later she was gently sobbing.
It seems odd that such a young woman would react so strongly to the death of an entertainer whose best years were well before she was born.
RIP.
Sounds more like she should not be let out on her own.
I was just in the local park when a young woman in her late teens / early twenties who was listening to the radio on her phone said: "Is it true Ronnie Corbett has died?"
I said I didn't know, and a few minutes later she was gently sobbing.
It seems odd that such a young woman would react so strongly to the death of an entertainer whose best years were well before she was born.
RIP.
Sounds more like she should not be let out on her own.
William Hill @sharpeangle Mayor of London - most First Pref votes, excl Khan/Goldsmith: 13/8 Whittle (UKIP): 9/4 Berry (Green); 11/4 Pidgeon (LD); 9/2 Galloway (Resp)
No odds on Winston? For shame
Galloway vs McKenzie is the real contest of the mayoral election.
You don't feel increasing the population by the size of a major city like Cardiff, each year, every year might have some effect on housing supply/demand then? Not to mention Health, education, transport.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
I suspect I’m about the only resident in ther small town where I live (other than someone who is trying to sell a derelict garden centre) who isn’t busy signing petitions agains any more houses being built here.
It's easy to understand why people are so reluctant to see every square inch of their neighbourhood built over to house the millions here as a result of uncontrolled immigration. And further enrich greedy property developers at the same time.
Hard to believe I actually agree with you for once
I couldn't give two hoots about farmland remaining as such. If people want to keep their farmland as farmland then great, nobody should say otherwise.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
I agree up to a point, though I think that considerations of scenery and the environment can reasonably constrain extreme ideas - I wouldn't really propose building 100 factories on the Downs even if it made economic sense.
But more to the point, it's established, explicit Government policy NOT to attempt to promote self-sufficiency in food.- the assumption that we can often import it more cheaply than we can make it is deeply embedded in Government policy and has been for decades. So those who argue that farms must be protected at all costs have a big, established policy to overcome.
Would a few strategically sunken ships make us all starve? Probably not, I'd think. A prolonged war involving the sea lanes would, as it nearly did in WW2, but thanks to the EU or whatever else one ascribes it, the likelihood of that seems to be near zero these days. Any big war we were in with the likes of Russia would be...short.
Nick, such a war would indeed be short. The UK would probably capitulate inside a month if an aggressor power managed to concentrate 6 to 12 modern non-nuclear submarines against the UK's trade.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
There was a document released called the Fundamental Law. This set up a method by which the EU was split into two separate entities, one a core Eurozone and the rest as 'Associate members'. It was a prototype treaty from the Spinelli federalist group.
The problem with this is that the compulsion in the treaty to eventually join the central core was not removed (so only us and the Danes are technically free of it). It would slowly move us to a point of no influence at all - with the EZ moving forward to full political integration. We'd be parked on the outside, still subject to all the political rulings but with very little pull.
Read with the 5 presidents report, then I think that was designed to be the 'windows 10' (last full treaty) moment for the EU, and I think it was also on the cards at one stage for 2017, which is why the referendum date is the same. We should have been voting on associate membership. But the timetable slipped due to the multiple crises and the German/French election timetable.
Sorry, that's meant to be a reply to @topping Still getting used to this comment system!
ha! Thanks - will take a look.
I don't think there's any doubt that there will be a two-speed europe EZ and EU members. We are the exception in the EU and any cursory reading of EU directives illustrates this. So the question is whether we are happier out of core EU but having input into and voting on the rules for various things, or whether we should be out altogether with input only at the preliminary stage of regulations.
As @DavidL points out, he believes it is better to be out because there is stuff we can self-determine and the EU is going its own way regardless (as you say). My view is that for those areas where we do have influence, coupled with the agreement (no ECU, no EZ discrimination), I think it better to be in.
As regular PB-ers will know this stems mainly from my view of how membership of the EU interacts with and affects our financial services industry.
Yikes. 7% of GDP is a new all time record, it's on the same level the USA reached just before they crashed in 2008. The famous large double deficits (budget deficit and current account deficit) really point to an upcoming crash if there is not a major correction in economic policy.
How to quickly cut outflows from the UK? 1. Cut overseas aid to the level of France = cuts the 7% by 0.3%. 2. Exit EU and save at least £11bn, = worth at least 0.7%. Together cuts 7% down to 6%. Simples and could save more on the EU part once we decide spending.
Polling is a real pick em job between Lib Dem, Green, UKIP for 3rd.
If UKIP can't even get 3rd place when a European referendum's on....
Well, it is London. Also EU Ref is a bit later. Same day might make the 11-8 a good bet. But London !
Well, yeah, it being London is an excuse for why UKIP are way behind the Big 2, but struggling to even stay ahead of the Greens and the Dead Parrot....?!?
Mr. Urquhart, it is a truth universally acknowledged that website redesigns inexplicably make things worse.
In all seriousness, I think the problem that all media outlets are having is that the design trend for modern websites have followed a more minimalist approach, often with just a single scrollable page. However, that doesn't work for media with lots of stories, and the number / types of stories constantly changing.
So far, I haven't seen anybody that has nailed it, they have all ended up with this mess of text, images, video links, all over the place.
Lots of their links don't work. Their Gallery has lost the animal pix archive and the rest say Facebook error page not recognised
And that's when I access the site directly with Firefox. There's no feedback options either. It's still much better than the Times dogs breakfast. 400 comments with 99% hating it.
Polling is a real pick em job between Lib Dem, Green, UKIP for 3rd.
If UKIP can't even get 3rd place when a European referendum's on....
Well, it is London. Also EU Ref is a bit later. Same day might make the 11-8 a good bet. But London !
Well, yeah, it being London is an excuse for why UKIP are way behind the Big 2, but struggling to even stay ahead of the Greens and the Dead Parrot....?!?
The parrots will get their 3-6% in the "Feeling guilty about voting Tory in the election, but we couldn't have coped with Ed Miliband's mansion tax" Southwest corner.
Lots of their links don't work. Their Gallery has lost the animal pix archive and the rest say Facebook error page not recognised
And that's when I access the site directly with Firefox. There's no feedback options either. It's still much better than the Times dogs breakfast. 400 comments with 99% hating it.
I was just in the local park when a young woman in her late teens / early twenties who was listening to the radio on her phone said: "Is it true Ronnie Corbett has died?"
I said I didn't know, and a few minutes later she was gently sobbing.
It seems odd that such a young woman would react so strongly to the death of an entertainer whose best years were well before she was born.
RIP.
Sounds more like she should not be let out on her own.
She was mourning the death of a Scotsman, Malc!
Maybe just a young lady with taste then. Though I have to say the modern stupidity of people wailing and gnashing their teeth in the streets for people they do not even know is a bit abhorrent to an old school type like myself.
Lots of their links don't work. Their Gallery has lost the animal pix archive and the rest say Facebook error page not recognised
And that's when I access the site directly with Firefox. There's no feedback options either. It's still much better than the Times dogs breakfast. 400 comments with 99% hating it.
Lots of their links don't work. Their Gallery has lost the animal pix archive and the rest say Facebook error page not recognised
And that's when I access the site directly with Firefox. There's no feedback options either. It's still much better than the Times dogs breakfast. 400 comments with 99% hating it.
O/T: The Telegraph seem to have changed the look of their website today. Looks a bit strange, as new website designs always do on the first day.
Comments immediately after a web redesign are always negative. The cheese has moved. Some people can't handle it. It generally works out well in the end.
Comments
Germany on the other hand entered the euro with a devalued currency, and the higher inflation rate in other eurozone countries kept the real value of the german currency cheaper than what would otherwise have been.
Germany has a currency that is now 40% undervalued hence its gigantic trade surpluses that are bigger than even China's and is growing all the time since the eurozone was created.
The world cant compete with a country that has a permanent undervalued currency, thus as long as the eurozone exists world trade imbalances are going to grow until either the eurozone disintegrates or the world economy is hit so hard that free trade is abandoned, thus making currency manipulations obsolete.
The economic case for Brexit is also created by those imbalances, that Britain cannot compete on a plain level with Germany, due to the eurozone.
The only way to fix this is either devalue sterling by 40% and fix it with the euro, or you leave the EU to restrict German imports.
Of course. But the natural response to increased demand is increased supply. In the UK we don't seem to have that option. 93% of the UK is still fields or wilderness. We are 'full' - but not really. The space available to build is full. A massive planning liberalisation (it's your land - do WTF you want with it) would make the supply / demand imbalance evaporate PDQ.
Grrrr, I despise Cameron and his chums I really do.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/3/31/this-one-statistic-sums-up-why-uk-steel-cant-compete-with-china
Methinks you are working backwards from your dislike of 'Cameron and his chums' to a very, very silly conclusion.
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finding-buried-treasure-caribbean
Of the land that notionally COULD be built on - well a lot lies in flood plains and a lot is used as farmland. Every square kilometre of farmland built on means more people to feed and less acreage to feed them.
England is (barring some micro-states) the most densely populated country in Europe and 5th most densely populated country in the world.
40% of UK food is imported - expected to rise to 50% in the next 20 years. A few sunken large ships in strategic places would make the Berlin Airlift look like a large picnic.
Branson or Paddy Power.
Remain = unaffordable housing or 'pave paradise and put up a parking lot'.
Greedy property developers .... you might have a point.
However if someone wants to build on their land or sell their land to a developer why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their land. Good luck to them.
At the same time once we've left the EU we should abolish agricultural subsidies and the CAP and not replace it with anything. If the farmland is productive then great, if it's not it should get the same level of support as other failed businesses.
Risk exists in equal measure either way.
Seems to be the standard response to anyone concerned by the increase in the numbers of people settling here from overseas. Brand them a racist and close down any sensible discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTWcEjj0w3s
I think we can be guaranteed no non-PC one liners...
Donald Trump was "dealt a blow" after "it was revealed" his campaign manager was charged with battery "the Standard has learnt".
But more to the point, it's established, explicit Government policy NOT to attempt to promote self-sufficiency in food.- the assumption that we can often import it more cheaply than we can make it is deeply embedded in Government policy and has been for decades. So those who argue that farms must be protected at all costs have a big, established policy to overcome.
Would a few strategically sunken ships make us all starve? Probably not, I'd think. A prolonged war involving the sea lanes would, as it nearly did in WW2, but thanks to the EU or whatever else one ascribes it, the likelihood of that seems to be near zero these days. Any big war we were in with the likes of Russia would be...short.
He was only going on holiday to give him "time to think". He might as well come home now he's finished with that
There was just one thing they needed to do for me today.
One thing.
And yet they still f*** it up.
Mine is awesome.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35937596
Donald Trump may have gone from a joke to a nightmare but is he just the latest incarnation of Ancient Athens’ favourite bad boy? This week’s Spectator Ancient and Modern column compares the wannabe prez to Cleon, who took over after the death of Pericles in 429 BC “with no known political or military experience behind him”.
“It was this ‘brutal and insolent’ speaker, said the historian Plutarch, who introduced shouting and abuse and excessive gesturing, encouraging other speakers to behave equally irresponsibly.” Little detail is available on whether or not he had a combover or a permatan, though.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-parking-fiasco-as-supercars-clog-the-streets-a3215076.html
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/715552070464630784
However, a Wiki check reveals I do actually know him (for some reason I had his name as Cleomenes in my mind). He was the chap that the excellent Brasidas thwarted (around Amphipolis, or thereabouts).
Really not sure what to do with my large Paul Ryan POTUS position.
Over on predictit, he's a bonkers 7/1 for the nomination and (arguably generous) 18-20/1 for potus.
Betfair's ~25/1 for the nomination seems around the right ballpark, which to me means his potus price of ~110/1 looks too generous. Would he really be 3/1 vs Hillary? I'd have him at 6/4 max.
Think i'll just hold for now. If his price falls below 50/1, i'll reconsider laying.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/who-is-the-tories-stop-boris-candidate/
Trump 37
Kasich 17
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/03/sanders-leads-in-wisconsin-gop-race-close-va-privatization-issue-hurts-johnson.html
Would be a decent result as I believe that would deliver CDs 1,3,7 and 8 to Trump and thus 12 Delegates.
Risk exists in equal measure either way.
We've already said no to the fiscal compact, the other EU members accepted it. How many times do you think we will be asked to and then have to opt out of or veto the fiscal compact?
There was a document released called the Fundamental Law. This set up a method by which the EU was split into two separate entities, one a core Eurozone and the rest as 'Associate members'. It was a prototype treaty from the Spinelli federalist group.
The problem with this is that the compulsion in the treaty to eventually join the central core was not removed (so only us and the Danes are technically free of it). It would slowly move us to a point of no influence at all - with the EZ moving forward to full political integration. We'd be parked on the outside, still subject to all the political rulings but with very little pull.
Read with the 5 presidents report, then I think that was designed to be the 'windows 10' (last full treaty) moment for the EU, and I think it was also on the cards at one stage for 2017, which is why the referendum date is the same. We should have been voting on associate membership. But the timetable slipped due to the multiple crises and the German/French election timetable.
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/fundamentallaw.pdf (Fundamental Law)
http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf
(5 Presidents report)
There was a document released called the Fundamental Law. This set up a method by which the EU was split into two separate entities, one a core Eurozone and the rest as 'Associate members'. It was a prototype treaty from the Spinelli federalist group.
The problem with this is that the compulsion in the treaty to eventually join the central core was not removed (so only us and the Danes are technically free of it). It would slowly move us to a point of no influence at all - with the EZ moving forward to full political integration. We'd be parked on the outside, still subject to all the political rulings but with very little pull.
Read with the 5 presidents report, then I think that was designed to be the 'windows 10' (last full treaty) moment for the EU, and I think it was also on the cards at one stage for 2017, which is why the referendum date is the same. We should have been voting on associate membership. But the timetable slipped due to the multiple crises and the German/French election timetable.
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/fundamentallaw.pdf (Fundamental Law)
http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf
(5 Presidents report)
Sorry, that's meant to be a reply to @topping
Still getting used to this comment system!
This is exactly what the neo-con artists and their open borders toadies have wanted all along, so that their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, can win. All that is left for them to do is hand pick a sacrificial lamb, like McCain and Romney.
This has happened because the GOP is nothing but a lobbyist check cashing service disguised as a political party.
About 10 million Republicans will leave the party in protest. I have already decided that is what I will do. I will vote for NO Republican at any level except Kelli Ward because she’s running against McCain. Not a dogcatcher, not a commissioner, no one.
I worked really hard to get Rep. Brat elected to congress and to beat Cantor. I believe the Cantor defeat was the election heard around the world. Nobody paid attention and it was forgotten immediately. But in actuality it was the opening volley in this upheaval. I will vote for Rep. Brat again but that is it. No other GOPers.
Interesting that Romney and Paul Ryan lost Wisconsin by 7 points. In 00 and 04 the Democrats won by less than 1 point.
William Hill @sharpeangle
Mayor of London - most First Pref votes, excl Khan/Goldsmith: 13/8 Whittle (UKIP): 9/4 Berry (Green); 11/4 Pidgeon (LD); 9/2 Galloway (Resp)
1) Be the bookie
2) Lay Galloway at 18%.
Polling is a real pick em job between Lib Dem, Green, UKIP for 3rd.
I don't think there's any doubt that there will be a two-speed europe EZ and EU members. We are the exception in the EU and any cursory reading of EU directives illustrates this. So the question is whether we are happier out of core EU but having input into and voting on the rules for various things, or whether we should be out altogether with input only at the preliminary stage of regulations.
As @DavidL points out, he believes it is better to be out because there is stuff we can self-determine and the EU is going its own way regardless (as you say). My view is that for those areas where we do have influence, coupled with the agreement (no ECU, no EZ discrimination), I think it better to be in.
As regular PB-ers will know this stems mainly from my view of how membership of the EU interacts with and affects our financial services industry.
1. Cut overseas aid to the level of France = cuts the 7% by 0.3%.
2. Exit EU and save at least £11bn, = worth at least 0.7%.
Together cuts 7% down to 6%.
Simples and could save more on the EU part once we decide spending.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/31/star-architect-zaha-hadid-dies-aged-65
So far, I haven't seen anybody that has nailed it, they have all ended up with this mess of text, images, video links, all over the place.
And that's when I access the site directly with Firefox. There's no feedback options either. It's still much better than the Times dogs breakfast. 400 comments with 99% hating it.
Fortified 10th-century castle in Italy complete with olive groves, 17 farmhouses and a church could be yours
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3517153/Fancy-owning-VILLAGE-Fortified-10th-century-castle-Italy-complete-olive-groves-17-farmhouses-church-spare-5-7million.html
school type like myself.
I'm astonished at how crap the Times is.