I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
Going forward, especially after Dave's recent exercise in boat burning, its going to be interesting to see how much that influence is really worth, especially as the Eurozone starts to pull together and federalise. We may find quite soon that influence is an illusion
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
The ECJ is massively overbearing and in many areas is effectively writing law on the hoof without even agreement from elected politicians, and in some cases in direct contravention to the expressed political will. Wasn't it said below that our financial service exports to the EU were around 5% of total exports, so while significant, its not huge dependence I would have thought
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
That clause is a political promise at the moment, it might at some point see the inside of a treaty, but given the disinclination in EU capitals to have another treaty any time soon, that may take a while. In the meantime if there is discrimination and we are told to get lost when we complain, we have no recourse since the ECJ is only interested in treaties.
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Well quite, the less said of the clusterfuck of the leave campaign the better, the most charitable thing you could say is that both major campaigns have said they could live with an EEA solution as a step in the right direction.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
If it's secret, and he tells you it doesn't exist, how would you know if he was lying.
Good question. I wouldn't, but someone would. Trouble is, the information would be worth much more to them than the few nights in a hotel they'd get from appearing in the Old Bailey as a witness for the prosecution. But when the first few politicians, ministers, judges and civil servants have issued denials, been caught out and jailed, at least the culture would be changing in the right direction.
If you thought he was lying where would you look to check. If you knew where to look how would you get access to the relevant information.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
Does anyone think Michael "Lord" Ashcroft wouldn't be on the first plane out?
The culture of secrecy can cause innocent jaws to drop, sometimes. Clearly there needs to be a massive cleanout of the legal stables, of the international commercial and banking legal fraternity. There's no big-time money-laundering without law firms involved.
I recall when some lawyer or other - I can't recall whether it was the Lord Chancellor or someone on fees - said that his advice to the government regarding whether it would be lawful or not to invade a foreign country was "confidential", because it came under "client confidentiality", his "client" being the government.
How about we call a stop to this. Or are we going to wait until Britain becomes the next Iceland?
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
This is another of these enormous red herring issues. US dollars are all cleared through the US. Euro denominated things can be cleared anywhere in the EU.
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
I did say Cameron might leave office before the referendum. Will he even make it past the aftermath of next week's "anti-corruption" conference?
Oxfam are calling for an independent public review of the operations of the City of London Corporation. Whoop! Whoop!
Is MI6 breaking into two, or what?
You cannot be serious. He is leading next months (not weeks) conference in London and he was instrumental in the banning of a type of share used in the tax havens. Since when did Oxfam become a political movement expressly banned under their charity status.
It has been for a very long time. A lot of "charities" are nothing more than political fronts for the left.
The ECB regulates the currency and all EUR-cleared business, they can do what they want with it. Check out BNP's recent $9bn fine as an fyi.
That was a fine imposed on BNP by the US government because they cleared trades (through New York) that were related to Iran, on which sanctions existed at the time. What they did was perfectly legal where they did it (Paris), but the US claimed juristiction, and BNP had to pay up or be forced out of the US.
150 seat losses sounds pretty good for Labour on these National Equivalent Vote share numbers to me.
Agreed. I think Labour would be looking at 250+ losses on a NEV of 30%. That would be absolutely dire for the Opposition, one year after a General Election.
Even the Tories at the nadir of their fortunes managed a NEV of 32% in 1998, and 34% in 2002.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Well within the EEA we would be at the table for drafting the regulations, we just wouldn't be there for the voting rounds. Though I'm sure being in the EEA would mean a less significant amount of input than being an EU member, again I don't see it as a big change.
EEA members already get full passport rights, so they would have to actively rescind that, which I don't think would be easy to do without our agreement as an EEA member.
As for advocating it, well I think it's myself, rcs1000 and possibly Casino Royale!
It's a start!
And I didn't mean the passporting, I meant EUR clearing business.
And for @runnymede also - case T496/11 (concerning "location policy) I don't think would have had the same outcome outside the EU or in the EEA.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
So let's just do the maths, shall we?
India's GDP is 3% of world GDP. Germany's is 5% per year.
If India grows 5% per year (quite downbeat) for 15 years and Germany 1.5% (quite upbeat), which is bigger at the end?
This tyranny of compound interest is already at work - that is why the EU share in UK exports has already slid so far.
Your dismissal of emerging markets ex-China is just ignorant, but what's fascinating about it is the use of the words 'fragmented' and 'big boys' - which shows you are hopelessly wedded to the misguided 'big bloc' mentality of the 60s and 70s which got us into the EU in the first place.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
The problem is that one of the biggest of those is the USA. The IRS is prepared to reveal almost nothing about the tax affairs of organisations within its borders, and you can form a shell company in Delaware for a handful of dollars without showing any ID. It might be construed as courageous to break off financial relations with the US.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
The problem is that one of the biggest of those is the USA. The IRS is prepared to reveal almost nothing about the tax affairs of organisations within its borders, and you can form a shell company in Delaware for a handful of dollars without showing any ID. It might be construed as courageous to break off financial relations with the US.
Its funny how Obama went all billy big bollocks on how many companies registered in one building in the Caymans, no so keen to talk about the same in Delaware.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Well within the EEA we would be at the table for drafting the regulations, we just wouldn't be there for the voting rounds. Though I'm sure being in the EEA would mean a less significant amount of input than being an EU member, again I don't see it as a big change.
EEA members already get full passport rights, so they would have to actively rescind that, which I don't think would be easy to do without our agreement as an EEA member.
As for advocating it, well I think it's myself, rcs1000 and possibly Casino Royale!
It's a start!
And I didn't mean the passporting, I meant EUR clearing business.
And for @runnymede also - case T496/11 (concerning "location policy) I don't think would have had the same outcome outside the EU or in the EEA.
I'm not sure that it would really make a difference.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
Yes, it's this kind of thinking which is why our trade with China is so poor at the moment. 20 years ago China was too small to care about so our companies concentrated on the EU and US. The former hasn't necessarily developed to our benefit give the huge trade deficit.
The big negative about the non-EU, non-China, non-US 'bloc' is that they are dominated by commodity producers: Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, Chile, Argentina, (and even, Australia, and Canada to an extent) etc. are all utterly dependent on the export of basic materials.
As we are now in a 20 year commodity down cycle, they may not be as attractive growth destinations in the next decade as they were in the last.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
If it's secret, and he tells you it doesn't exist, how would you know if he was lying.
Good question. I wouldn't, but someone would. Trouble is, the information would be worth much more to them than the few nights in a hotel they'd get from appearing in the Old Bailey as a witness for the prosecution. But when the first few politicians, ministers, judges and civil servants have issued denials, been caught out and jailed, at least the culture would be changing in the right direction.
If you thought he was lying where would you look to check. If you knew where to look how would you get access to the relevant information.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
Does anyone think Michael "Lord" Ashcroft wouldn't be on the first plane out?
See ss.81-83, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 for business interests in the UK.
I did say Cameron might leave office before the referendum. Will he even make it past the aftermath of next week's "anti-corruption" conference?
Oxfam are calling for an independent public review of the operations of the City of London Corporation. Whoop! Whoop!
Is MI6 breaking into two, or what?
You cannot be serious. He is leading next months (not weeks) conference in London and he was instrumental in the banning of a type of share used in the tax havens. Since when did Oxfam become a political movement expressly banned under their charity status.
It has been for a very long time. A lot of "charities" are nothing more than political fronts for the left.
Is Oxfam one of the organisations guilty of hounding old ladies to death with incessant demands for donations, and menacing people on the streets with chugging? Seems like less of a charity, more a racket.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
His argument for remain was only forceful because he wasn't challenged and his audience were putty in his hands because where he was in Birmingham.
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.
He is a formidable campaigner for remain and I do not see anyone in leave who will command the audience in the way David Cameron is likely to, particularly in the televised debates
The ECB regulates the currency and all EUR-cleared business, they can do what they want with it. Check out BNP's recent $9bn fine as an fyi.
That was a fine imposed on BNP by the US government because they cleared trades (through New York) that were related to Iran, on which sanctions existed at the time. What they did was perfectly legal where they did it (Paris), but the US claimed juristiction, and BNP had to pay up or be forced out of the US.
Pretty poor behaviour, really.
Exactly. But being dollar-cleared business, they made it their business. If you clear trades through NY as you must if they are USD-denominated, the US govt makes it their business also.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
The problem is that one of the biggest of those is the USA. The IRS is prepared to reveal almost nothing about the tax affairs of organisations within its borders, and you can form a shell company in Delaware for a handful of dollars without showing any ID. It might be construed as courageous to break off financial relations with the US.
The USA is one of the biggest Tax Havens going......and are curiously uninterested in shutting themselves down......of course, the UK is no slouch either.....
The ECB regulates the currency and all EUR-cleared business, they can do what they want with it. Check out BNP's recent $9bn fine as an fyi.
That was a fine imposed on BNP by the US government because they cleared trades (through New York) that were related to Iran, on which sanctions existed at the time. What they did was perfectly legal where they did it (Paris), but the US claimed juristiction, and BNP had to pay up or be forced out of the US.
Pretty poor behaviour, really.
Exactly. But being dollar-cleared business, they made it their business. If you clear trades through NY as you must if they are USD-denominated, the US govt makes it their business also.
Likewise, for the ECB and EUR-cleared business.
Hopefully it leads (as appears to be the case) to the dollar being dropped from being used for international transactions - it's little more the piracy.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
Yes, it's this kind of thinking which is why our trade with China is so poor at the moment. 20 years ago China was too small to care about so our companies concentrated on the EU and US. The former hasn't necessarily developed to our benefit give the huge trade deficit.
The big negative about the non-EU, non-China, non-US 'bloc' is that they are dominated by commodity producers: Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, Chile, Argentina, (and even, Australia, and Canada to an extent) etc. are all utterly dependent on the export of basic materials.
As we are now in a 20 year commodity down cycle, they may not be as attractive growth destinations in the next decade as they were in the last.
To some degree I agree but I think the economic downturns in these places will lead to policy/political changes and the move towards market economics will drive their next stage of growth. Brazil is going to be a big test of my theory, if they can successfully remove Rousseff and replace her and her party with sane politicians and policies I think Brazil should move into a better position despite the oil and gas downturn.
Blimey, I have no recollection of that thread from just last month, - must be an age thing!
Off topic - According to Jeremy Corbyn the “UK tax havens 'should face direct rule'”
Seems a tad over the top considering the UK does not have the authority to do so as far as I’m aware. I wonder if Jeremy is considering sending in ground troops to convince them?
This could have unexpected consequences. If the Falklands or Gibraltar became a part of the UK, some people would not be happy.
Personally, I think all 14 Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies should be represented at Westminster, without prejudice to their current self-government/local government.
Perhaps on the same basis that DC is represented in the House of Representatives ...
India's GDP is 3% of world GDP. Germany's is 5% per year.
If India grows 5% per year (quite downbeat) for 15 years and Germany 1.5% (quite upbeat), which is bigger at the end?
Well, Max didn't mention India, which I agree might have been a better answer.
But yes, let's do the maths:
EU ex UK, currently 20% of world GDP, growing at 1% a year (we'll assume the whole does less well than your figure for Germany), compared with India, 3%, growing at 5% per year consistently for 15 years. After 15 years, the EU ex UK is still nearly four times larger than India.
In any case, it's not an either/or. No one is saying we shouldn't be trading more with India (or Thailand or Chile, for that matter). But we've still got some low-hanging fruit on our doorstep; the European market for services is still relatively immature.
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
This is another of these enormous red herring issues. US dollars are all cleared through the US. Euro denominated things can be cleared anywhere in the EU.
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
Blimey, I have no recollection of that thread from just last month, - must be an age thing!
Off topic - According to Jeremy Corbyn the “UK tax havens 'should face direct rule'”
Seems a tad over the top considering the UK does not have the authority to do so as far as I’m aware. I wonder if Jeremy is considering sending in ground troops to convince them?
This could have unexpected consequences. If the Falklands or Gibraltar became a part of the UK, some people would not be happy.
Personally, I think all 14 Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies should be represented at Westminster, without prejudice to their current self-government/local government.
Perhaps on the same basis that DC is represented in the House of Representatives ...
I think most of your overseas territories have some kind of representation in the House, right? Like US Samoa and Puerto Rico?
Blimey, I have no recollection of that thread from just last month, - must be an age thing!
Off topic - According to Jeremy Corbyn the “UK tax havens 'should face direct rule'”
Seems a tad over the top considering the UK does not have the authority to do so as far as I’m aware. I wonder if Jeremy is considering sending in ground troops to convince them?
This could have unexpected consequences. If the Falklands or Gibraltar became a part of the UK, some people would not be happy.
Personally, I think all 14 Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies should be represented at Westminster, without prejudice to their current self-government/local government.
Perhaps on the same basis that DC is represented in the House of Representatives ...
I think most of your overseas territories have some kind of representation in the House, right? Like US Samoa and Puerto Rico?
I believe no...Puerto Rico does but has basically no voting rights. Not only do they not have representation many can't even vote for the president. US Samoa you aren't even a "full" US citizen, they have their own special (special in a bad way) standing.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
The problem is that one of the biggest of those is the USA. The IRS is prepared to reveal almost nothing about the tax affairs of organisations within its borders, and you can form a shell company in Delaware for a handful of dollars without showing any ID. It might be construed as courageous to break off financial relations with the US.
The USA is one of the biggest Tax Havens going......and are curiously uninterested in shutting themselves down......of course, the UK is no slouch either.....
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
This isn't logical. The UK is in the EU. The argument is that the EU has a restrictive or dampening effect to trade with ROW. The winners and losers within the EU cannot prove or disprove that notion. If the UK were outside the EU and doing worse than countries inside it, your point would be more convincing, if still not necessarily valid.
Blimey, I have no recollection of that thread from just last month, - must be an age thing!
Off topic - According to Jeremy Corbyn the “UK tax havens 'should face direct rule'”
Seems a tad over the top considering the UK does not have the authority to do so as far as I’m aware. I wonder if Jeremy is considering sending in ground troops to convince them?
This could have unexpected consequences. If the Falklands or Gibraltar became a part of the UK, some people would not be happy.
Personally, I think all 14 Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies should be represented at Westminster, without prejudice to their current self-government/local government.
Perhaps on the same basis that DC is represented in the House of Representatives ...
I think most of your overseas territories have some kind of representation in the House, right? Like US Samoa and Puerto Rico?
"Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives include non-voting delegates and resident commissioners. They are non-voting members who are elected from a U.S. territory or from Washington, D.C., to a two-year term (with the exception of the one representing Puerto Rico, who is elected to a four-year term). While unable to vote in the full House, a non-voting member may vote in a House committee of which the delegate is a member, as well as introduce legislation.[1][2] There are currently six non-voting members, representing Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
India's GDP is 3% of world GDP. Germany's is 5% per year.
If India grows 5% per year (quite downbeat) for 15 years and Germany 1.5% (quite upbeat), which is bigger at the end?
Well, Max didn't mention India, which I agree might have been a better answer.
But yes, let's do the maths:
EU ex UK, currently 20% of world GDP, growing at 1% a year (we'll assume the whole does less well than your figure for Germany), compared with India, 3%, growing at 5% per year consistently for 15 years. After 15 years, the EU ex UK is still nearly four times larger than India.
In any case, it's not an either/or. No one is saying we shouldn't be trading more with India (or Thailand or Chile, for that matter). But we've still got some low-hanging fruit on our doorstep; the European market for services is still relatively immature.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
As for your 'low-hanging fruit' point, I think you are kidding yourself.
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
This is another of these enormous red herring issues. US dollars are all cleared through the US. Euro denominated things can be cleared anywhere in the EU.
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
Euro denominated "things" can be cleared anywhere in the EU because of the single market and we took them to court to prove this and argue against their location policy so we obviously thought it worthwhile to do that. And we won. Or should we not have bothered? What would LCH Clearnet have been advising I wonder? Go synthetic?
But I think this typifies the EU argument in that it is often argued in black and white rather than on balance. As an example the ECB succeeding in that court case and repatriating the physical euro-clearing back to the EZ would have put the UK in a less good position than otherwise. Would we have survived and been inventive and so forth? Of course. Would it have been a good idea to have chosen to create this added burden for ourselves? Not in my opinion.
Likewise @MaxPB's can we get on with having less influence in financial services regulation than otherwise? Of course. Would I choose having less influence over having more? No.
At the moment, this too is a good question. There isn't any public registry of beneficial interests. So let's have compulsory registration of beneficial interests and let's get Britain to break off all financial relations with any country which doesn't, and make it unlawful for British citizens, British residents and even visitors to Britain to hold assets, whether legal or beneficial, in those countries.
The problem is that one of the biggest of those is the USA. The IRS is prepared to reveal almost nothing about the tax affairs of organisations within its borders, and you can form a shell company in Delaware for a handful of dollars without showing any ID. It might be construed as courageous to break off financial relations with the US.
The USA is one of the biggest Tax Havens going......and are curiously uninterested in shutting themselves down......of course, the UK is no slouch either.....
More than 50% of all U.S. publicly traded companies and 63% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware.
No government is going to risk pissing off that sort of steamroller.
One reason there may be relatively few Americans named in the documents is that it is fairly easy to form shell companies in the United States. James Henry, an economist and senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network, told Fusion that Americans “really don’t need to go to Panama.”
“Basically, we have an onshore haven industry in the U.S. that is as secretive as anywhere,” he said.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
As for your 'low-hanging fruit' point, I think you are kidding yourself.
It looks a surer route to growth than navigating political risk in dozens of emerging markets, some of which are protectionist or hostile, and some of which have legal systems of dubious efficiency or probity. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm of course not saying we shouldn't be striving hard to export to emerging markets. But we don't need to leave the EU to do so).
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
As for your 'low-hanging fruit' point, I think you are kidding yourself.
It looks a surer route to growth than navigating political risk in dozens of emerging markets, some of which are protectionist or hostile, and some of which have legal systems of dubious efficiency or probity. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm of course not saying we shouldn't be striving hard to export to emerging markets. But we don't need to leave the EU to do so).
The ability to strike bilateral trade promotion deals which enable privileged access to British companies is something worth having and our WTO seat is definitely worth having.
Perhaps another bloke called Aaron Banks and they put two and two and made five? It isn't exactly an uncommon name.
The Guardian has had the “Panama Papers” for the best part of a year as I understand it, plenty of time to substantiate identities before publication. As for the Mail, they are just repeating the Guardian’s coverage of the story.
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
There but for the grace of God, as Mr P.Morgan might have once said.
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
This is another of these enormous red herring issues. US dollars are all cleared through the US. Euro denominated things can be cleared anywhere in the EU.
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
Euro denominated "things" can be cleared anywhere in the EU because of the single market and we took them to court to prove this and argue against their location policy so we obviously thought it worthwhile to do that. And we won. Or should we not have bothered? What would LCH Clearnet have been advising I wonder? Go synthetic?
But I think this typifies the EU argument in that it is often argued in black and white rather than on balance. As an example the ECB succeeding in that court case and repatriating the physical euro-clearing back to the EZ would have put the UK in a less good position than otherwise. Would we have survived and been inventive and so forth? Of course. Would it have been a good idea to have chosen to create this added burden for ourselves? Not in my opinion.
Likewise @MaxPB's can we get on with having less influence in financial services regulation than otherwise? Of course. Would I choose having less influence over having more? No.
Alot of the EEA will be just as good as the EU, seems to be based on developments in the EU continuing in the general free market, liberal vein they have up until now. (Obviously not exactly as open as we would like but generally OK)
How sure are we that would be the case after we left and the balance of power shifts more to the protectionist France and Mediterranean countries?
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
As for your 'low-hanging fruit' point, I think you are kidding yourself.
It looks a surer route to growth than navigating political risk in dozens of emerging markets, some of which are protectionist or hostile, and some of which have legal systems of dubious efficiency or probity. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm of course not saying we shouldn't be striving hard to export to emerging markets. But we don't need to leave the EU to do so).
What is this 'fragmented' point you are trying to make? It is just waffle. So they all have separate foreign trade regimes - so what? They are all still likely to grow much faster than the EU in a 15 year horizon and that is what really matters.
Your second point is just laughable. UK exporters have been negotiating all these the scary things you wibble on about for centuries. And despite all these terribly scary things, the UK's share of exports to emerging countries is rising, and the share to the oh-so-wonderful and honest EU is dropping.
Crude prices slid to their lowest level since March 4 after the US Energy Information Administration reported gasoline demand fell for first time in 14 months.
The Brent benchmark was trading at $37.41 a barrel with West Texas Intermediate standing at $35.44 as of 11am GMT.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Crude prices slid to their lowest level since March 4 after the US Energy Information Administration reported gasoline demand fell for first time in 14 months.
The Brent benchmark was trading at $37.41 a barrel with West Texas Intermediate standing at $35.44 as of 11am GMT.
Iran is signalling a significant increase in production as well, essentially flouting the OPEC cap. If the Saudis don't announce a cut in production the price will fall further.
Mr. Eagles, licence*. Only takes an S when used as a verb.
The difference* between Hannibal and Caesar is that Hannibal's more magnificent in defeat than Caesar is in victory. Hannibal became leader of Carthage, Caesar got murdered by his own side.
*Leaving aside that Hannibal was incontestably the better general.
I've been looking at the possible attractions of betting on the winning margin, that is to say the extent (if any) to which the score of the winner is less than the second placed player(s) over those 72 holes, i.e. excluding any play-off holes should these prove necessary.
Over the last 10 years (2006-2015), there have been 7 occasions when the winning margin has been 2 shots or more (i.e. 70%).
Over the last 20 years (1996 - 2015), there have been 13 occasions when the winning margin has been 2 shots or more (i.e. 65%).
Currently the best combination odds available for betting on a winning margin of 2 shots or more are as follows:
2 Shots Stan James ....................... 5.0 (Combination bet stake 38.12%)
3 Shots Stan James ....................... 7.0 (Combination bet stake 27.23%)
4+ Shots SkyBet/Betfair Sport ....... 5.5 (Combination bet stake 34.65%)
By combining the three bets above in accordance with the staking percentages shown, if any of the three bets were to prove successful the overall profit, expressed in decimal terms would be 1.905 (i.e ~ 10/11 in old money).
This return is considerably better than the equivalent mathematical odds based on the actual incidence of 2+ shot winning margins over the past 20 years:
1996 - 2005 : 6 winners out of 10 = 60% probability = 1.67 Decimal Odds
2006 - 2015 : 7 winners out of 10 = 70% probability = 1.43 Decimal Odds
1996 - 2015 : 13 winners out of 20 = 65% probability = 1.54 Decimal Odds
I am further encouraged by the fact that the 2015 tournament was won by 4 shots and the 2014 tournament by 3 shots. Generally speaking, recent trends are more reliable than much older data. As ever, DYOR.
Perhaps another bloke called Aaron Banks and they put two and two and made five? It isn't exactly an uncommon name.
The Guardian has had the “Panama Papers” for the best part of a year as I understand it, plenty of time to substantiate identities before publication. As for the Mail, they are just repeating the Guardian’s coverage of the story.
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
There but for the grace of God, as Mr P.Morgan might have once said.
It is amazing not a single labour or lib dem mp, Lord or donor past or present on their list....
Mr. Eagles, licence*. Only takes an S when used as a verb.
The difference* between Hannibal and Caesar is that Hannibal's more magnificent in defeat than Caesar is in victory. Hannibal became leader of Carthage, Caesar got murdered by his own side.
*Leaving aside that Hannibal was incontestably the better general.
I think it is apt that article about Hannibal being awesome is actually about horse manure.
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
This is another of these enormous red herring issues. US dollars are all cleared through the US. Euro denominated things can be cleared anywhere in the EU.
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
Euro denominated "things" can be cleared anywhere in the EU because of the single market and we took them to court to prove this and argue against their location policy so we obviously thought it worthwhile to do that. And we won. Or should we not have bothered? What would LCH Clearnet have been advising I wonder? Go synthetic?
But I think this typifies the EU argument in that it is often argued in black and white rather than on balance. As an example the ECB succeeding in that court case and repatriating the physical euro-clearing back to the EZ would have put the UK in a less good position than otherwise. Would we have survived and been inventive and so forth? Of course. Would it have been a good idea to have chosen to create this added burden for ourselves? Not in my opinion.
Likewise @MaxPB's can we get on with having less influence in financial services regulation than otherwise? Of course. Would I choose having less influence over having more? No.
Alot of the EEA will be just as good as the EU, seems to be based on developments in the EU continuing in the general free market, liberal vein they have up until now. (Obviously not exactly as open as we would like but generally OK)
How sure are we that would be the case after we left and the balance of power shifts more to the protectionist France and Mediterranean countries?
this is I think pertinent.
Many people say that if we stay the EU will carry on merrily ignoring our needs, while if we leave the EU will carry on merrily ignoring our needs (it is eg. @DavidL's view and he is for Leave).
Their point (I think) being that if they are going to do their own thing anyway, let's leave them to do their own thing. Mine is that Cam did get a two-speed EU enshrined in the agreement, and that is ok protection IMO to remain in and benefit from the bits that will benefit us, while ignoring the ECU.
(I know @Richard_Tyndall will be along momentarily to tell me Cam achieved nothing...)
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
His argument for remain was only forceful because he wasn't challenged and his audience were putty in his hands because where he was in Birmingham.
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.
He is a formidable campaigner for remain and I do not see anyone in leave who will command the audience in the way David Cameron is likely to, particularly in the televised debates
How will he go down with a wwc audience? Answer = badly.
Perhaps another bloke called Aaron Banks and they put two and two and made five? It isn't exactly an uncommon name.
The Guardian has had the “Panama Papers” for the best part of a year as I understand it, plenty of time to substantiate identities before publication. As for the Mail, they are just repeating the Guardian’s coverage of the story.
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
There but for the grace of God, as Mr P.Morgan might have once said.
It is amazing not a single labour or lib dem mp, Lord or donor past or present on their list....
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
His argument for remain was only forceful because he wasn't challenged and his audience were putty in his hands because where he was in Birmingham.
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.
He is a formidable campaigner for remain and I do not see anyone in leave who will command the audience in the way David Cameron is likely to, particularly in the televised debates
How will he go down with a wwc audience? Answer = badly.
So far as one can tell, Cameron's standing among the public as a whole has fallen sharply in the past six weeks or so.
But, what matters for the purpose of this referendum, is how far he can sway the 38% who voted Conservative, rather than the 62% who didn't. I don't think he's done as well as he might have expected. I think a sizeable number of Conservatives were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see what he was able to negotiate. but were distinctly unimpressed by the outcome..
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
He's a difficult Tory to dislike. Whether or not these pictures are photo ops they don't look like they are. It's rather unfortunate that the Tories are so dysfunctional that they won't realize what they've lost until they've replaced him with someone really nasty like the type they usually choose.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
His argument for remain was only forceful because he wasn't challenged and his audience were putty in his hands because where he was in Birmingham.
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.
He is a formidable campaigner for remain and I do not see anyone in leave who will command the audience in the way David Cameron is likely to, particularly in the televised debates
How will he go down with a wwc audience? Answer = badly.
Dave keeps on winning Labour seats which contain the WWC.
Funny that for someone who you think goes down badly with the WWC.
The Economist/ Ipsos MORI March 2016 Issues Index – concern about the EU continues to rise, and the lowest level of concern about crime for 25 years
The March 2016 Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows the prominence of the European Union as an issue facing Britain continuing to increase, with one quarter (23%) of the public now mentioning it as one of the most important issues facing Britain, compared to one fifth (20%) in February. Those most likely to mention the EU as an important issue are those living in south-east England excluding London (37%) and those who voted Conservative at the last election (42%), compared to those living in the Midlands (20%) and Labour voters (16%).
Despite this increase, the European Union remains the fourth-most mentioned issue facing Britain, behind immigration (46%), the NHS (34%) and the economy (25%). Fieldwork was conducted mostly before the attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
He's a difficult Tory to dislike. Whether or not these pictures are photo ops they don't look like they are. It's rather unfortunate that the Tories are so dysfunctional that they won't realize what they've lost until they've replaced him with someone really nasty like the type they usually choose.
As one MP memorably declared during Thatcher's downfall, 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis!'.......
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
He's a difficult Tory to dislike. Whether or not these pictures are photo ops they don't look like they are. It's rather unfortunate that the Tories are so dysfunctional that they won't realize what they've lost until they've replaced him with someone nasty like the type they usually choose.
Not another lefty who thinks Cameron is wonderful - lol,must make some Tories on here worry ;-)
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Only if they've got something they are very keen to sell to us, and that we want.
The fragmentation issue is very important. As in any business, you concentrate on the three customers who account for over 50% of the market, not the fifty also-rans who make up the rest.
Of course, I take runnymede's point about the potential for growth (assuming of course we can correctly concentrate on the right ones). But it's really not plausible to think that there is some pot of gold accessible if we sign our own trade deals, as opposed to taking advantage of the clout of the EU in negotiating larger-scale trade deals. Quite apart from anything else, we'd lose a considerable time scrabbling to put back deals with the countries whose EU-negotiated trade deals are currently already in place, about to come into force, or at an advanced state of negotiation. Some of those are important - Canada, USA, South Korea, Turkey, South Africa.
The Economist/ Ipsos MORI March 2016 Issues Index – concern about the EU continues to rise, and the lowest level of concern about crime for 25 years
The March 2016 Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows the prominence of the European Union as an issue facing Britain continuing to increase, with one quarter (23%) of the public now mentioning it as one of the most important issues facing Britain, compared to one fifth (20%) in February. Those most likely to mention the EU as an important issue are those living in south-east England excluding London (37%) and those who voted Conservative at the last election (42%), compared to those living in the Midlands (20%) and Labour voters (16%).
Despite this increase, the European Union remains the fourth-most mentioned issue facing Britain, behind immigration (46%), the NHS (34%) and the economy (25%). Fieldwork was conducted mostly before the attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
The Economist/ Ipsos MORI March 2016 Issues Index – concern about the EU continues to rise, and the lowest level of concern about crime for 25 years
The March 2016 Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows the prominence of the European Union as an issue facing Britain continuing to increase, with one quarter (23%) of the public now mentioning it as one of the most important issues facing Britain, compared to one fifth (20%) in February. Those most likely to mention the EU as an important issue are those living in south-east England excluding London (37%) and those who voted Conservative at the last election (42%), compared to those living in the Midlands (20%) and Labour voters (16%).
Despite this increase, the European Union remains the fourth-most mentioned issue facing Britain, behind immigration (46%), the NHS (34%) and the economy (25%). Fieldwork was conducted mostly before the attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
He's a difficult Tory to dislike. Whether or not these pictures are photo ops they don't look like they are. It's rather unfortunate that the Tories are so dysfunctional that they won't realize what they've lost until they've replaced him with someone really nasty like the type they usually choose.
As one MP memorably declared during Thatcher's downfall, 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis!'.......
That's very funny but not really true. They create crises out of nothing and never seem content unless rutting
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
He's a difficult Tory to dislike. Whether or not these pictures are photo ops they don't look like they are. It's rather unfortunate that the Tories are so dysfunctional that they won't realize what they've lost until they've replaced him with someone really nasty like the type they usually choose.
As one MP memorably declared during Thatcher's downfall, 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis!'.......
That's very funny but not really true. They create crises out of nothing and never seem content unless rutting
My favourite observation on it was by William Hague
The Tory Party is an absolute monarchy, moderated by regicide
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
You only had to have seen the earlier ICO Motorman report to know that other newspaper groups would likely be up to the same tricks. It must have been down to chance that so much time was spent focused on News International rather than say Trinity Mirror.
My favourite observation on it was by William Hague
The Tory Party is an absolute monarchy, moderated by regicide
That's a reprise of an old line about Tsarist Russia. From memory: "Every country has its own constitutional system. Ours is tyranny, moderated by assassination'.
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
You only had to have seen the earlier ICO Motorman report to know that other newspaper groups would likely be up to the same tricks. It must have been down to chance that so much time was spent focused on News International rather than say Trinity Mirror.
Remind me what was it that a judge said in mirror case when comparing their activities to new international....they basically made ni look like part time amateurs.
But comparing column inches written in the guardian you would think notw where world cup winners & mirror bottom of the conference south.
It might seem unbelievable now but there was a time when Guido was like Private Eye. An even handed destroyer. Now he's just a poor mans Dan Hodge out to cripple opponents
The Economist/ Ipsos MORI March 2016 Issues Index – concern about the EU continues to rise, and the lowest level of concern about crime for 25 years
The March 2016 Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows the prominence of the European Union as an issue facing Britain continuing to increase, with one quarter (23%) of the public now mentioning it as one of the most important issues facing Britain, compared to one fifth (20%) in February. Those most likely to mention the EU as an important issue are those living in south-east England excluding London (37%) and those who voted Conservative at the last election (42%), compared to those living in the Midlands (20%) and Labour voters (16%).
Despite this increase, the European Union remains the fourth-most mentioned issue facing Britain, behind immigration (46%), the NHS (34%) and the economy (25%). Fieldwork was conducted mostly before the attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.
Is it just me, or is the EU still only ranking 4th, when the media have been banging on about it for weeks, not exactly impressive?
You're right.
I keep on telling PBers, this is the phoney war stage.
The referendum campaign proper starts The 9th of May, when Dave keeps on banging on economic security and the economic risk of Brexit.
I'm sure you're right. I have a feeling the result will be much more decisive than seems likely at the moment. When the arguments are presented by those with the expertise to do it properly the correct decision will become apparent. I'm not sure which way it'll go yet but I'm almost certain the arguments won't be finely balanced and therefore the decision will be emphatic.
It might seem unbelievable now but there was a time when Guido was like Private Eye. An even handed destroyer. Now he's just a poor mans Dan Hodge out to cripple opponents
Yes - it seems incredible that now Guido is part of the gentleman's establishment that he continues to attack the establishment party that is Labour.
Comments
Does anyone think Michael "Lord" Ashcroft wouldn't be on the first plane out?
The culture of secrecy can cause innocent jaws to drop, sometimes. Clearly there needs to be a massive cleanout of the legal stables, of the international commercial and banking legal fraternity. There's no big-time money-laundering without law firms involved.
I recall when some lawyer or other - I can't recall whether it was the Lord Chancellor or someone on fees - said that his advice to the government regarding whether it would be lawful or not to invade a foreign country was "confidential", because it came under "client confidentiality", his "client" being the government.
How about we call a stop to this. Or are we going to wait until Britain becomes the next Iceland?
But you have effective synthetic clearing of US dollars in Europe, in Tokyo, etc. You already have synthetic Euro clearing all over the world.
You know what: the ECB could require Euro clearing to take place in the Eurozone and it would have almost no impact whatsoever on London's position in financial services. "Official" clearing is an administrative function, not a value add one.
Pretty poor behaviour, really.
Even the Tories at the nadir of their fortunes managed a NEV of 32% in 1998, and 34% in 2002.
And I didn't mean the passporting, I meant EUR clearing business.
And for @runnymede also - case T496/11 (concerning "location policy) I don't think would have had the same outcome outside the EU or in the EEA.
India's GDP is 3% of world GDP. Germany's is 5% per year.
If India grows 5% per year (quite downbeat) for 15 years and Germany 1.5% (quite upbeat), which is bigger at the end?
This tyranny of compound interest is already at work - that is why the EU share in UK exports has already slid so far.
Your dismissal of emerging markets ex-China is just ignorant, but what's fascinating about it is the use of the words 'fragmented' and 'big boys' - which shows you are hopelessly wedded to the misguided 'big bloc' mentality of the 60s and 70s which got us into the EU in the first place.
As we are now in a 20 year commodity down cycle, they may not be as attractive growth destinations in the next decade as they were in the last.
Likewise, for the ECB and EUR-cleared business.
https://panamapapers.icij.org/graphs/
But yes, let's do the maths:
EU ex UK, currently 20% of world GDP, growing at 1% a year (we'll assume the whole does less well than your figure for Germany), compared with India, 3%, growing at 5% per year consistently for 15 years. After 15 years, the EU ex UK is still nearly four times larger than India.
In any case, it's not an either/or. No one is saying we shouldn't be trading more with India (or Thailand or Chile, for that matter). But we've still got some low-hanging fruit on our doorstep; the European market for services is still relatively immature.
No government is going to risk pissing off that sort of steamroller.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10294973/Unite-the-union-paid-no-tax-in-2011-and-2012.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
As for your 'low-hanging fruit' point, I think you are kidding yourself.
But I think this typifies the EU argument in that it is often argued in black and white rather than on balance. As an example the ECB succeeding in that court case and repatriating the physical euro-clearing back to the EZ would have put the UK in a less good position than otherwise. Would we have survived and been inventive and so forth? Of course. Would it have been a good idea to have chosen to create this added burden for ourselves? Not in my opinion.
Likewise @MaxPB's can we get on with having less influence in financial services regulation than otherwise? Of course. Would I choose having less influence over having more? No.
“Basically, we have an onshore haven industry in the U.S. that is as secretive as anywhere,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/world/panama-papers-leak-offshore-tax-havens.html
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/73483/jon-trickett-sparks-row-after-suggesting-local
Name check for OGH as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35969107
This kafuffle has all the hallmarks of how the Guardian covered ‘Hack-Gate’ where certain favoured papers/individuals where off limits and ignored.
There but for the grace of God, as Mr P.Morgan might have once said.
How sure are we that would be the case after we left and the balance of power shifts more to the protectionist France and Mediterranean countries?
Your second point is just laughable. UK exporters have been negotiating all these the scary things you wibble on about for centuries. And despite all these terribly scary things, the UK's share of exports to emerging countries is rising, and the share to the oh-so-wonderful and honest EU is dropping.
Get your head out of the sand.
"Hannibal's third century BC campaign is seen as one of the greatest military endeavours in antiquity."
then say
"But Hannibal was ultimately defeated at the battle of Zama in 202 BC."
A great military endeavour does not involve you losing the war and having the snot beaten out of you.
I might stop paying my license fee if they keep on producing nonsense like this.
Crude prices slid to their lowest level since March 4 after the US Energy Information Administration reported gasoline demand fell for first time in 14 months.
The Brent benchmark was trading at $37.41 a barrel with West Texas Intermediate standing at $35.44 as of 11am GMT.
https://www.rt.com/business/338486-oil-prices-fall-us-demand/
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
The difference* between Hannibal and Caesar is that Hannibal's more magnificent in defeat than Caesar is in victory. Hannibal became leader of Carthage, Caesar got murdered by his own side.
*Leaving aside that Hannibal was incontestably the better general.
The Masters, Augusta 7 - 10 April
I've been looking at the possible attractions of betting on the winning margin, that is to say the extent (if any) to which the score of the winner is less than the second placed player(s) over those 72 holes, i.e. excluding any play-off holes should these prove necessary.
Over the last 10 years (2006-2015), there have been 7 occasions when the winning margin has been 2 shots or more (i.e. 70%).
Over the last 20 years (1996 - 2015), there have been 13 occasions when the winning margin has been 2 shots or more (i.e. 65%).
Currently the best combination odds available for betting on a winning margin of 2 shots or more are as follows:
2 Shots Stan James ....................... 5.0 (Combination bet stake 38.12%)
3 Shots Stan James ....................... 7.0 (Combination bet stake 27.23%)
4+ Shots SkyBet/Betfair Sport ....... 5.5 (Combination bet stake 34.65%)
By combining the three bets above in accordance with the staking percentages shown, if any of the three bets were to prove successful the overall profit, expressed in decimal terms would be 1.905 (i.e ~ 10/11 in old money).
This return is considerably better than the equivalent mathematical odds based on the actual incidence of 2+ shot winning margins over the past 20 years:
1996 - 2005 : 6 winners out of 10 = 60% probability = 1.67 Decimal Odds
2006 - 2015 : 7 winners out of 10 = 70% probability = 1.43 Decimal Odds
1996 - 2015 : 13 winners out of 20 = 65% probability = 1.54 Decimal Odds
I am further encouraged by the fact that the 2015 tournament was won by 4 shots and the 2014 tournament by 3 shots. Generally speaking, recent trends are more reliable than much older data.
As ever, DYOR.
Many people say that if we stay the EU will carry on merrily ignoring our needs, while if we leave the EU will carry on merrily ignoring our needs (it is eg. @DavidL's view and he is for Leave).
Their point (I think) being that if they are going to do their own thing anyway, let's leave them to do their own thing. Mine is that Cam did get a two-speed EU enshrined in the agreement, and that is ok protection IMO to remain in and benefit from the bits that will benefit us, while ignoring the ECU.
(I know @Richard_Tyndall will be along momentarily to tell me Cam achieved nothing...)
Nigeria
Colombia
The Gulf Nations
Russia
Venezuela
etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
But, what matters for the purpose of this referendum, is how far he can sway the 38% who voted Conservative, rather than the 62% who didn't. I don't think he's done as well as he might have expected. I think a sizeable number of Conservatives were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see what he was able to negotiate. but were distinctly unimpressed by the outcome..
Funny that for someone who you think goes down badly with the WWC.
The Economist/ Ipsos MORI March 2016 Issues Index – concern about the EU continues to rise, and the lowest level of concern about crime for 25 years
The March 2016 Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows the prominence of the European Union as an issue facing Britain continuing to increase, with one quarter (23%) of the public now mentioning it as one of the most important issues facing Britain, compared to one fifth (20%) in February. Those most likely to mention the EU as an important issue are those living in south-east England excluding London (37%) and those who voted Conservative at the last election (42%), compared to those living in the Midlands (20%) and Labour voters (16%).
Despite this increase, the European Union remains the fourth-most mentioned issue facing Britain, behind immigration (46%), the NHS (34%) and the economy (25%). Fieldwork was conducted mostly before the attacks in Brussels on 22nd March.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3715/Economist-Ipsos-MORI-March-2016-Issues-Index.aspx#.VwPWpevgNiE.twitter
The fragmentation issue is very important. As in any business, you concentrate on the three customers who account for over 50% of the market, not the fifty also-rans who make up the rest.
Of course, I take runnymede's point about the potential for growth (assuming of course we can correctly concentrate on the right ones). But it's really not plausible to think that there is some pot of gold accessible if we sign our own trade deals, as opposed to taking advantage of the clout of the EU in negotiating larger-scale trade deals. Quite apart from anything else, we'd lose a considerable time scrabbling to put back deals with the countries whose EU-negotiated trade deals are currently already in place, about to come into force, or at an advanced state of negotiation. Some of those are important - Canada, USA, South Korea, Turkey, South Africa.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216
http://order-order.com/2016/04/05/khan-backed-by-tax-avoiding-offshore-fund-managers/
I keep on telling PBers, this is the phoney war stage.
The referendum campaign proper starts The 9th of May, when Dave keeps on banging on economic security and the economic risk of Brexit.
The Tory Party is an absolute monarchy, moderated by regicide
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
But comparing column inches written in the guardian you would think notw where world cup winners & mirror bottom of the conference south.
Trump 45 .. Cruz 28 .. Kasich 18
Clinton 51 .. Sanders 42
Clinton 45 .. Trump 33
Clinton 45 .. Cruz 33
..........................
National - Morning Consult
Trump 45 .. Cruz 27 .. Kasich 14
Clinton 47 .. Sanders 39
http://www.out-law.com/brexit/
The many site Leavers will be delighted to note that I haven't been drafting the commentary.
https://twitter.com/smashmorePH/status/717380282027008000
More robust response than the one earlier today.
Populus online Leave 45% Remain 39%. Populus phone Leave 37%, Remain 48%.
(And a good thing too)
Clinton 55 .. Sanders 33
http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-democratic-primary-poll--4-2-3