Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people,
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
44% of goods and services trade, based
And falling.
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.
UK exports to the EU were about 30% of the total in 1973. They may well be there again by 2030.
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically. It was late, hence the £100 fine. If the Sun's story has any substance he's a liability to his party. How can he possibly complain about others not taking their responsibilities seriously, when he plainly demonstrates that he does not.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
It would be interesting to know how a company like this has survived for so long, especially the 70s, 80s and 90s. It seems beyond bizarre that such a company was capable of continuous business without any insolvency event throughout that period of the British Economy.
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically. It was late, hence the £100 fine. If the Sun's story has any substance he's a liability to his party. How can he possibly complain about others not taking their responsibilities seriously, when he plainly demonstrates that he does not.
Guido inferring he made substantial sums from offshore sources
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically. It was late, hence the £100 fine. If the Sun's story has any substance he's a liability to his party. How can he possibly complain about others not taking their responsibilities seriously, when he plainly demonstrates that he does not.
I agree. I am no fan of his politics, but his real distinguishing features are his complete and total incompetence and his absence of leadership skills.
Mind you an incompetent looney leftie is better than a ruthlessly efficient one, I suppose!
Osbourne and Little must have had distributable reserves otherwise it couldn't have paid a dividend. These would normally come from retained profits, wouldn't they?
Preference Shares. It is quite easy to pay a dividend (even one based on "interest" using a Preference instrument). It seems reasonable to think that Osbourne might be a beneficiary of such an arrangement. Yes, the fault is that of other shareholders but it is reasonable to assume other shareholders had very limited awareness of such things.
' The Chancellor said he also made £3 in interest last year on savings held in a UK bank. '
Does Osborne really have a current account which doesn't pay any interest ???
This is a man who promised to pay off a deficit in 5 years and will not have paid it off in 10. It is not unsurprising his personal finances would be such a pig in a poke.
Christ. I've tried watching this Newsnight debate on the EU, because I feel I need to know something about the arguments for/against, but the whole thing is just so dull.
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically. It was late, hence the £100 fine. If the Sun's story has any substance he's a liability to his party. How can he possibly complain about others not taking their responsibilities seriously, when he plainly demonstrates that he does not.
Maybe its generational, but in a circumstance like this, I would use block caps. It seems strange that he did not and his handwriting looks utterly appalling (it's worse than mine and probably lots of others, hence the use of block caps).
"So in the blue corner we have a man so incompetent he paid too much tax"
No, the deductions he could have claimed are debatable. If he had made the claim he would have been pilloried for doing so, now. He, or more likely his accountant, erred on the side of cautious in the knowledge that a dispute with HMRC would play very badly if it ever became public knowledge.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Reading the original Sunday Times piece, Osborne and Little has been making significant operating profits for a while, but it had suffered losses due to exceptionals, goodwill, write offs, and other assorted sundries.
Christ. I've tried watching this Newsnight debate on the EU, because I feel I need to know something about the arguments for/against, but the whole thing is just so dull.
Maybe they should stick to worrying about if Justin Bieber's deadlocks are culturally appropriate.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Reading the original Sunday Times piece, Osborne and Little has been making significant operating profits for a while, but it had suffered losses due to exceptionals, goodwill, write offs, and other assorted sundries.
It jumped from 20% in 1973 it seems - when we joined, according to figure 2 i
I think my 10% figure relates to the original 6, yours to the wider 28. My figure comes from the Economist.
The jump in exports in1973 to the 'actual' EU is due to enlargement. Exports to what became the EU-9 were about 30% of UK exports before we joined as well. Look at figure 2.iii.
I have no idea where the 10% number you quoted comes from.
And there's a further point of course which is that the current 44% and declining export share to the EU refers to a much bigger group of countries than in 1973. If we do indeed get back to around 30% by 2030 (see figure 2.ii) that will also relate to the current EU-28, not the EU-9 of 1973.
So despite substantial enlargement and the much vaunted single market we may be no more integrated in trade terms with the EU by 2030 than we were forty years ago.
There is speculation in The Times that the politician to be most damaged by the release of tax returns is Nigel Farage, who is adamant he will not published.
Given his past form on his MEP allowances, you can see how his opponents will spin it.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Reading the original Sunday Times piece, Osborne and Little has been making significant operating profits for a while, but it had suffered losses due to exceptionals, goodwill, write offs, and other assorted sundries.
Such as Debentures held in an offshore trust which paid dividends to unknown UK residents?
You're welcome, though I'm not sure I was any use at all. I occasionally[1] surf the net for tech hints and tips and I am constantly annoyed by the IMMENSE number of people who respond to the question "how do I do X" with "why do you want to do X, what you want to do is Y". So I hope my answer, although inadequate, at least addressed the question you asked.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Reading the original Sunday Times piece, Osborne and Little has been making significant operating profits for a while, but it had suffered losses due to exceptionals, goodwill, write offs, and other assorted sundries.
Such as Debentures held in an offshore trust which paid dividends to unknown UK residents?
You can download the accounts for yourself, so there's no need for libellous speculation.
He hasn't. That statement is potentially libellous. There has been nothing to suggest that on his father's death the executors of his father's estate did not pay all the tax that was due. Unless you know differently? And Cameron's mother is still alive.
'Christ. I've tried watching this Newsnight debate on the EU, because I feel I need to know something about the arguments for/against, but the whole thing is just so dull.'
Problem was when the 'experts' were speaking they were constantly interrupted and talked over by Mandelson
Dodgy Dave - 788 790 Finchley Road, South Africa 1989 trip, Carlton Kengate tape scandal, Carroll Foundation Trust. Not often I agree with Dennis Skinner, but the dodgy Dave quote was right on the mark.
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically.
Like I wrote earlier, MPs are not allowed to send in returns electronically. You have to use a special MP form which is tailored to fit with the expense report from the House, and it has to be done by hand (or with a typewriter, I suppose).
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically.
Like I wrote earlier, MPs are not allowed to send in returns electronically. You have to use a special MP form which is tailored to fit with the expense report from the House, and it has to be done by hand (or with a typewriter, I suppose).
So they'd be up against the end of October deadline for filing a paper return? But I thought Corbyn's 100 quid fine came from filing in early February?
Corbyn really is a walking disaster. His tax return is almost illegible. Why didn't he send it electronically.
Like I wrote earlier, MPs are not allowed to send in returns electronically. You have to use a special MP form which is tailored to fit with the expense report from the House, and it has to be done by hand (or with a typewriter, I suppose).
So they'd be up against the end of October deadline for filing a paper return? But I thought Corbyn's 100 quid fine came from filing in early February?
Apparently MPs have until end of Jan to submit their paper returns.
You're welcome, though I'm not sure I was any use at all. I occasionally[1] surf the net for tech hints and tips and I am constantly annoyed by the IMMENSE number of people who respond to the question "how do I do X" with "why do you want to do X, what you want to do is Y". So I hope my answer, although inadequate, at least addressed the question you asked.
[1] well, once every five seconds...
You should be reading the manual first before surfing for tech hints and tips.
I emailed my brother in New York to ask him whether it is [Name1] and [Name2] or whether it is [Name3] and [Name4] (or somebody else) but he emailed back pretending not to know what I was referring to... #spoilsport
You're welcome, though I'm not sure I was any use at all. I occasionally[1] surf the net for tech hints and tips and I am constantly annoyed by the IMMENSE number of people who respond to the question "how do I do X" with "why do you want to do X, what you want to do is Y". So I hope my answer, although inadequate, at least addressed the question you asked.
[1] well, once every five seconds...
You should be reading the manual first before surfing for tech hints and tips.
I emailed my brother in New York to ask him whether it is [Name1] and [Name2] or whether it is [Name3] and [Name4] (or somebody else) but he emailed back pretending not to know what I was referring to... #spoilsport
The Pop Bitch guide to "spotting the injuncter" is handy:
It's actually quite funny to see the random and miscellaneous extensive coverage the celebrity couple has been getting over the past week.
And it's provided a perfect illustration of the Streisand effect - if the original story had run It would pretty much have sunk without trace "One half of celebrity couple plays away shocker" - up there with "dog bites man" - now it will be dragged out and explored in minute detail.....well, the Lawyers will be happy....
Comments
Even the Government gives big hints on how to legally avoid IHT's clutches.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
Almost as if they don't really want anyone to pay the tax, if at all possible...
I think my 10% figure relates to the original 6, yours to the wider 28. My figure comes from the Economist.
I do wonder if he has an offset mortgage.
This is a problem of revealing personal financial details - it inevitably leads to further questions.
Mind you an incompetent looney leftie is better than a ruthlessly efficient one, I suppose!
No, the deductions he could have claimed are debatable. If he had made the claim he would have been pilloried for doing so, now. He, or more likely his accountant, erred on the side of cautious in the knowledge that a dispute with HMRC would play very badly if it ever became public knowledge.
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/05794611/OSBORNE--LITTLE-GROUP-LIMITED/financial-accounts
It hadn't paid a dividend for several years, until y/e 31/3/15
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.
UK exports to the EU were about 30% of the total in 1973. They may well be there again by 2030.
http://forbritain.org/cogchapter2.pdf
It jumped from 20% in 1973 it seems - when we joined, according to figure 2 i
I think my 10% figure relates to the original 6, yours to the wider 28. My figure comes from the Economist.
The jump in exports in1973 to the 'actual' EU is due to enlargement. Exports to what became the EU-9 were about 30% of UK exports before we joined as well. Look at figure 2.iii.
I have no idea where the 10% number you quoted comes from.
And there's a further point of course which is that the current 44% and declining export share to the EU refers to a much bigger group of countries than in 1973. If we do indeed get back to around 30% by 2030 (see figure 2.ii) that will also relate to the current EU-28, not the EU-9 of 1973.
So despite substantial enlargement and the much vaunted single market we may be no more integrated in trade terms with the EU by 2030 than we were forty years ago.
Given his past form on his MEP allowances, you can see how his opponents will spin it.
[1] well, once every five seconds...
'How much IHT has Dave dodged?'
Can you remind us how much IHT was paid on Tony Benn's £ 5 million estate ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn77LJuxigc
'Christ. I've tried watching this Newsnight debate on the EU, because I feel I need to know something about the arguments for/against, but the whole thing is just so dull.'
Problem was when the 'experts' were speaking they were constantly interrupted and talked over by Mandelson
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/why-are-the-us-elections-so-important/
Dodgy Dave - 788 790 Finchley Road, South Africa 1989 trip, Carlton Kengate tape scandal, Carroll Foundation Trust. Not often I agree with Dennis Skinner, but the dodgy Dave quote was right on the mark.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/snp-accused-of-refusing-calls-for-school-building-checks-1-4096553