It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
.... not a conversation I have very often :-)
Probably more often that I do I recently had to explain to one of my carpenters that when fitting the skirting board on the first floor of a house, it doesn't continue horizontally straight across the wall when you get to the staircase, but follows the base of the wall down the stairs.
The base data on the ICM poll is 54/46 Leave on 10/10 certain to vote (62% turnout)
That's getting very, very close to the 55% I believe Leave needs to be polling to have a 50% chance of winning [due to 'swingback' to the status quo]. The trend is with Leave but will it be too little, too late?
1% short of your target with more than 2 months to go? Doesn't sound like too late to me.
1% short with a £16mn Remain campaign starting now versus a £7mn Leave campaign. If Leave keeps the momentum going for two months more then they could be north of 60% in the polls by the end of the campaign - but I'm not expecting that.
We'll see.
EDIT: Also 54% is in one poll not the average of polls. If it was the polling average then yes it'd be very tight.
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
A bit like taxation however in that it is a great idea as long as you personally aren't affected.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
It a quarter of what Gordon Brown did in his worst year.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
A bit like taxation however in that it is a great idea as long as you personally aren't affected.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
Will the retired care? Their handouts won't change as a result.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
.... not a conversation I have very often :-)
Probably more often that I do I recently had to explain to one of my carpenters that when fitting the skirting board on the first floor of a house, it doesn't continue horizontally straight across the wall when you get to the staircase, but follows the base of the wall down the stairs.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
But people are not trying to cover their investment, they are trying to cover their trading expenses.
If you can buy a million "Stock X" today for £10.00 and sell it in six months for £12.00 you will have had a good day at the office, two million quid in the pocket minus a bit for the trading cost, which is what maybe a fiver for an execution only trade ?
The share price will only rise from £10 to £12 if the expectation for profits (and thus dividends) over the next 17 years increases proportionately. Share prices are based on long term expectations not on a single year.
What about all the companies that have never paid a dividend. Google for example, yet people buy and sell GOOG on the basis of the expected rise of the stock value.
Mr. Pulpstar, that might upset things in Lebanon. My limited understanding is that there's been an unstable but roughly balanced political situation there for years, but if Hezbollah grows fat on ISIS' demise, that could upset the apple cart.
This could be the perfect result because Cameron would stay and have serious renegotiations with the EU about free movement of people; the Common Agricultural Policy; and free trade with Commonwealth Countries. Then another referendum after a real reformation of the EU.
Mr. Pulpstar, that might upset things in Lebanon. My limited understanding is that there's been an unstable but roughly balanced political situation there for years, but if Hezbollah grows fat on ISIS' demise, that could upset the apple cart.
Which has implications for wine production. Worrying times.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
I'm not sure that it will. Maybe the predictions of Chinese dominance will turn out like those regarding Japan in the 1980s.
The predictions about Japan overtaking the US were always nonsense. A smallish bunch of islands with a population of 120m was never going to overtake a continent-sized country with twice as many people. It was a classic example of confusing projection with prediction. Japan grew very rapidly post-war because it started from such a low base and had the skills and attitudes to make the most of its opportunity. But reaching near the top with a highly educated and motivated workforce isn't that hard, producing double the GDP per capita is a wholly different matter; unachieveable except in small states with high-value industries based largely on exports.
China is not Japan. It doesn't need to have a per capita income double that of the US to catch it. Indeed, it doesn't need to be anywhere near the same income levels; sheer weight of numbers will do the trick.
Obviously, simply topping the US's GDP won't make China top dog: the US's institutional, historic and soft power will keep it there for a good while after crossover - but it will come, just as the US surpassed Britain.
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
Post referendum I do not expect Osborne to be Chancellor. Indeed the post referendum cabinet will be very different with Gove, Boris, Patel at the very least taking senior positions, Gove probably Chancellor
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
Mr. Pulpstar, that might upset things in Lebanon. My limited understanding is that there's been an unstable but roughly balanced political situation there for years, but if Hezbollah grows fat on ISIS' demise, that could upset the apple cart.
Hezbollah is far stronger than the Lebanese army I think.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
A bit like taxation however in that it is a great idea as long as you personally aren't affected.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
It a quarter of what Gordon Brown did in his worst year.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
There are only two problems with that counterfactual:
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
"Advertising agencies are like lawyers. They’re whores. They can be pitching for the anti smoking account at the same time as they’re shooting the new Hamlet commercial."
As a lawyer, I think this is unfair, and a widely held misconception. Whilst we must avoid conflicts of interest, we are simply representing our diverse client base, advising them on their legal obligations, and articulating and advocating their interests. I have acted for a number of clients I have no great time for personally, others I have had a great passion for and felt able to articulate their cause in my personal capacity. That doesn't make me a whore.
Can't the same charge be leveled at all professional service operations?
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
Rubbish - what is the ratio of Technical to Fundamentals traders, and which has the greatest effect on price movements in the market.
Is anyone aware of a market on the outcome of a Leave vote followed by not leaving? Something like "Article 50 not invoked within 12 months of a Leave victory"?
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
But people are not trying to cover their investment, they are trying to cover their trading expenses.
If you can buy a million "Stock X" today for £10.00 and sell it in six months for £12.00 you will have had a good day at the office, two million quid in the pocket minus a bit for the trading cost, which is what maybe a fiver for an execution only trade ?
The share price will only rise from £10 to £12 if the expectation for profits (and thus dividends) over the next 17 years increases proportionately. Share prices are based on long term expectations not on a single year.
What about all the companies that have never paid a dividend. Google for example, yet people buy and sell GOOG on the basis of the expected rise of the stock value.
No they buy it on the underlying basis of the expected future value of dividends not an extrapolation of historical levels.
I did my Masters Thesis on this (in '04) and then at least the historical link between a stocks present stock value and their future dividends was very strong.
Is anyone aware of a market on the outcome of a Leave vote followed by not leaving? Something like "Article 50 not invoked within 12 months of a Leave victory"?
I'm not aware of such markets and I'm awaiting them with keen interest. I'm particularly keen on seeing a "time taken to conclude renegotiation" market.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
That is true, although one simple solution in the short term would be to raise the retirement age.
But even if the Chinese population halved, it'd still be double that of the US.
Why did Labour not elect David Miliband? His anti-Brexit rhetoric is virtually Churchillian:
‘No nation in human peacetime history, never mind Britain, has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June. For what? A cold, hard lesson in the demon of hubris, born of delusion that the world owes us a break.’
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
Except the parent company (which gets those charges) is not making a profit. Amazon is not a profitable company and should not be discussed in that category. What should be done is ensuring that VAT is applied to all of Amazon's sales.
I hate the link between corporation tax and sales figures frequently made in the media. Ignorant bastards, VAT is the sales-related tax. *rolleyes*
"Amazon is not a profitable company", says it all really. It is a massive global business, people that run it earn serious wodges of cash, it has no trouble raising capital but it doesn't make any money.
If ever there was a case study into the idiocy of Corporation Tax, Amazon must be it.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
A bit like taxation however in that it is a great idea as long as you personally aren't affected.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
Will the retired care? Their handouts won't change as a result.
A bit like with all the ring fenced areas the actual budget cuts will fall more heavily on unprotected areas. Likewise those who aren't protected or on handouts will suffer more. Surely a factor for them.
I somehow doubt that the great unwashed will be moved by the IMF's views on the impact of a Brexit on investors.
It is the great unwashed that I believe will decide this. The Mrs Duffy's who worry about the effects on their lives from "flocking immigrants". My guesstimate spreadsheet forecasts that even if Labour GE 2015 voters go 2:1 for REMAIN, LEAVE can still narrowly win.
Only flaw with that cunning plan is that by June someone will have pointed out to the Mrs Duffy's of this world that what we are going to do after we Brexit will have no effect whatsoever on immigration.
Excellent thread Roger. As another old saying goes, 'Selling is getting rid of what you've got, Marketing is having what you can get rid of'.
I think LEAVE has a bit of a marketing problem in the 'product' because its far from clear they know what the 'product' is - just vague generalisations about 'taking control' and 'sovereignty' while REMAIN has 'your job might be at risk, prices could go up, and we'd all be worse off.....'
I'm keeping everything crossed that the British spirit of 1940 hasn't fully died within our national psyche, and we are still able to stick a healthy two fingers up at those who say we are doomed.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
There are only two problems with that counterfactual:
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
3) it would attract the charge (rightly in this case) of disingenuousness from diehard Leavers if he then changed his mind regardless of an improved offer.
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
Post referendum I do not expect Osborne to be Chancellor. Indeed the post referendum cabinet will be very different with Gove, Boris, Patel at the very least taking senior positions, Gove probably Chancellor
If there is a Leave vote then wouldn't Gove as Chancellor be a mistake?
I think we would need a Cabinet Secretary responsible for Brexit negotiations ... potentially the Foreign Secretary or potentially a new position. All this talk of Gove to Chancellor and Osborne to Foreign Secretary kind of misses the point of where the important position will be.
We can keep Cameron as PM and Party Leader but can't have him as PM and Party Leader and a Remainer as negotiator for Brexit too. That would need to be a Leaver and Gove seems like the most serious Leaver there is for that position.
So Gove to Foreign Secretary would be my move. Osborne can stay in the Treasury and ensure we get the budget surplus he has talked about.
I did my Masters Thesis on this (in '04) and then at least the historical link between a stocks present stock value and their future dividends was very strong.
Google have never paid a dividend.
In 2004 (ironically) the stock was valued at $54, today it was $736. On average 2 million shares are traded every day, these traders are presumably not waiting for a dividend.
I somehow doubt that the great unwashed will be moved by the IMF's views on the impact of a Brexit on investors.
It is the great unwashed that I believe will decide this. The Mrs Duffy's who worry about the effects on their lives from "flocking immigrants". My guesstimate spreadsheet forecasts that even if Labour GE 2015 voters go 2:1 for REMAIN, LEAVE can still narrowly win.
Only flaw with that cunning plan is that by June someone will have pointed out to the Mrs Duffy's of this world that what we are going to do after we Brexit will have no effect whatsoever on immigration.
Probably, but she wont believe them because that nice Mr Farage is telling her otherwise
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
.... not a conversation I have very often :-)
Probably more often that I do I recently had to explain to one of my carpenters that when fitting the skirting board on the first floor of a house, it doesn't continue horizontally straight across the wall when you get to the staircase, but follows the base of the wall down the stairs.
Picture rail innit tho.
It would have been at the bottom, more a handrail half-way down
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
There are only two problems with that counterfactual:
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
The PM was supposed to have said this at Davos this year according to the Telegraph
"You are never going to hear me say that Britain could not succeed outside the European Union"
Why did Labour not elect David Miliband? His anti-Brexit rhetoric is virtually Churchillian:
‘No nation in human peacetime history, never mind Britain, has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June. For what? A cold, hard lesson in the demon of hubris, born of delusion that the world owes us a break.’
He was splendid on the Today programme this morning.
What on earth was Labour thinking?
(Well, I suppose the Labour Party was thinking "let's elect this electable alternative to Cameron", the Union paymasters were thinking "Let's vote in his more malleable leftie brother....")
Is anyone aware of a market on the outcome of a Leave vote followed by not leaving? Something like "Article 50 not invoked within 12 months of a Leave victory"?
I'm not aware of such markets and I'm awaiting them with keen interest. I'm particularly keen on seeing a "time taken to conclude renegotiation" market.
I think it's a given that a Leave vote won't result in us leaving. The only question is whether we have the interim step of a second referendum in order to be allowed to give the right answer second time round.
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
Except the parent company (which gets those charges) is not making a profit. Amazon is not a profitable company and should not be discussed in that category. What should be done is ensuring that VAT is applied to all of Amazon's sales.
I hate the link between corporation tax and sales figures frequently made in the media. Ignorant bastards, VAT is the sales-related tax. *rolleyes*
Tax is levied on individual companies not on consolidated group figures. If the Amazon Uk company is making a profit (adjusting for artificial transfers of costs from the offshore parent) then it should pay tax in the UK regardless of losses made elsewhere.
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
Post referendum I do not expect Osborne to be Chancellor. Indeed the post referendum cabinet will be very different with Gove, Boris, Patel at the very least taking senior positions, Gove probably Chancellor
If there is a Leave vote then wouldn't Gove as Chancellor be a mistake?
I think we would need a Cabinet Secretary responsible for Brexit negotiations ... potentially the Foreign Secretary or potentially a new position. All this talk of Gove to Chancellor and Osborne to Foreign Secretary kind of misses the point of where the important position will be.
We can keep Cameron as PM and Party Leader but can't have him as PM and Party Leader and a Remainer as negotiator for Brexit too. That would need to be a Leaver and Gove seems like the most serious Leaver there is for that position.
So Gove to Foreign Secretary would be my move. Osborne can stay in the Treasury and ensure we get the budget surplus he has talked about.
I think Osborne needs a move and Gove will have a big role in a post referendum cabinet. David Cameron will need to carry on irrespective of the result as a figurehead and let the leavers get on with negotiations if we leave. Today seems to be a catalyst for the remain campaign as McDonnell and Alan Johnson take a very hands on approach warning of the dangers of Brexit. I haven't heard McDonnell before on the subject but he did say that the local elections were important but that the labour party and the unions will be stepping up their remain campaign to get out the labour vote and in particular the young vote
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
Except the parent company (which gets those charges) is not making a profit. Amazon is not a profitable company and should not be discussed in that category. What should be done is ensuring that VAT is applied to all of Amazon's sales.
I hate the link between corporation tax and sales figures frequently made in the media. Ignorant bastards, VAT is the sales-related tax. *rolleyes*
Tax is levied on individual companies not on consolidated group figures. If the Amazon Uk company is making a profit (adjusting for artificial transfers of costs from the offshore parent) then it should pay tax in the UK regardless of losses made elsewhere.
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
Why did Labour not elect David Miliband? His anti-Brexit rhetoric is virtually Churchillian:
‘No nation in human peacetime history, never mind Britain, has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June. For what? A cold, hard lesson in the demon of hubris, born of delusion that the world owes us a break.’
He was splendid on the Today programme this morning.
What on earth was Labour thinking?
(Well, I suppose the Labour Party was thinking "let's elect this electable alternative to Cameron", the Union paymasters were thinking "Let's vote in his more malleable leftie brother....")
Milliband major's problem is that he appears to perform only when the pressure is off. Still better than Milliband minor, of course.
I somehow doubt that the great unwashed will be moved by the IMF's views on the impact of a Brexit on investors.
It is the great unwashed that I believe will decide this. The Mrs Duffy's who worry about the effects on their lives from "flocking immigrants". My guesstimate spreadsheet forecasts that even if Labour GE 2015 voters go 2:1 for REMAIN, LEAVE can still narrowly win.
Only flaw with that cunning plan is that by June someone will have pointed out to the Mrs Duffy's of this world that what we are going to do after we Brexit will have no effect whatsoever on immigration.
Probably, but she wont believe them because that nice Mr Farage is telling her otherwise
You mean like they listened to him and swept UKIP to the win they were expecting in Oldham West
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
Post referendum I do not expect Osborne to be Chancellor. Indeed the post referendum cabinet will be very different with Gove, Boris, Patel at the very least taking senior positions, Gove probably Chancellor
If there is a Leave vote then wouldn't Gove as Chancellor be a mistake?
I think we would need a Cabinet Secretary responsible for Brexit negotiations ... potentially the Foreign Secretary or potentially a new position. All this talk of Gove to Chancellor and Osborne to Foreign Secretary kind of misses the point of where the important position will be.
We can keep Cameron as PM and Party Leader but can't have him as PM and Party Leader and a Remainer as negotiator for Brexit too. That would need to be a Leaver and Gove seems like the most serious Leaver there is for that position.
So Gove to Foreign Secretary would be my move. Osborne can stay in the Treasury and ensure we get the budget surplus he has talked about.
I think Osborne needs a move and Gove will have a big role in a post referendum cabinet. David Cameron will need to carry on irrespective of the result as a figurehead and let the leavers get on with negotiations if we leave. Today seems to be a catalyst for the remain campaign as McDonnell and Alan Johnson take a very hands on approach warning of the dangers of Brexit. I haven't heard McDonnell before on the subject but he did say that the local elections were important but that the labour party and the unions will be stepping up their remain campaign to get out the labour vote and in particular the young vote
I really hope Alan Johnson is given the chance to participate in as many debates as possible. Heck, I would love to debate him. Johnson's knowledge of the EU consists of whatever soundbites have been handed to him before the interview.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
There are only two problems with that counterfactual:
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
The PM was supposed to have said this at Davos this year according to the Telegraph
"You are never going to hear me say that Britain could not succeed outside the European Union"
In a highly provocative statement, Mr Juncker, the president of the European Commission, claimed that there is no chance of Britain voting to leave the union and suggested that Mr Cameron is using the vote to ensure Britain remains a member of the EU "permanently". “Brexit is also a question that does not arise, it is not what the British are seeking,” Mr Juncker said. “Cameron wants to dock his country permanently to Europe.”
I somehow doubt that the great unwashed will be moved by the IMF's views on the impact of a Brexit on investors.
It is the great unwashed that I believe will decide this. The Mrs Duffy's who worry about the effects on their lives from "flocking immigrants". My guesstimate spreadsheet forecasts that even if Labour GE 2015 voters go 2:1 for REMAIN, LEAVE can still narrowly win.
Only flaw with that cunning plan is that by June someone will have pointed out to the Mrs Duffy's of this world that what we are going to do after we Brexit will have no effect whatsoever on immigration.
Probably, but she wont believe them because that nice Mr Farage is telling her otherwise
You mean like they listened to him and swept UKIP to the win they were expecting in Oldham West
Remind me of the last Euro Election result again ?
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
The Markit PMI numbers suggest nothing of the sort. Here are the services numbers:
Ireland 62.8 Spain 55.3 Germany 55.1 India 54.3 United Kingdom 53.7 China 52.2 United States 51.3 Italy 51.2 Emerging Mrkts 50.3 Japan 50.0 France 49.9 Brazil 38.6
I am sure Cameron little local difficulties with his tax returns being splashed all over the media haven't helped the Remain situation....Trust me I got a good deal says Dave.
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I wonder what your average conservative middle England voter thinks of Osborne being on the same side as a person like John McDonnell.
Post referendum I do not expect Osborne to be Chancellor. Indeed the post referendum cabinet will be very different with Gove, Boris, Patel at the very least taking senior positions, Gove probably Chancellor
If there is a Leave vote then wouldn't Gove as Chancellor be a mistake?
I think we would need a Cabinet Secretary responsible for Brexit negotiations ... potentially the Foreign Secretary or potentially a new position. All this talk of Gove to Chancellor and Osborne to Foreign Secretary kind of misses the point of where the important position will be.
We can keep Cameron as PM and Party Leader but can't have him as PM and Party Leader and a Remainer as negotiator for Brexit too. That would need to be a Leaver and Gove seems like the most serious Leaver there is for that position.
So Gove to Foreign Secretary would be my move. Osborne can stay in the Treasury and ensure we get the budget surplus he has talked about.
I think Osborne needs a move and Gove will have a big role in a post referendum cabinet. David Cameron will need to carry on irrespective of the result as a figurehead and let the leavers get on with negotiations if we leave. Today seems to be a catalyst for the remain campaign as McDonnell and Alan Johnson take a very hands on approach warning of the dangers of Brexit. I haven't heard McDonnell before on the subject but he did say that the local elections were important but that the labour party and the unions will be stepping up their remain campaign to get out the labour vote and in particular the young vote
I really hope Alan Johnson is given the chance to participate in as many debates as possible. Heck, I would love to debate him. Johnson's knowledge of the EU consists of whatever soundbites have been handed to him before the interview.
Alan Johnson makes Cameron look like a proper grafter.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
A modest effect on business confidence? Very likely. Catastrophic? Plainly not.
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
Indeed. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and communism. I think the UK can cope with some economic dislocation when it exits a trading bloc.
Most of those victories were as part of a multi national alliance.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
There are only two problems with that counterfactual:
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
1) It's called a negotiation. Clearly an alien concept to our Prime Minister.
2) There is EVERY evidence that the EU would come a-begging. It's what they have done every time a democratic decision has not gone their way. In fact, it's almost as if you need a vote that kicks them in the balls before they'll pay you any attention...
What the hell cause this sudden "chicken-licken" complex with Remain supporters, I mean I know all about Project Fear, but that is going to cut no ice what so ever on this board, and yet in the last couple of hours we have had loads of people running around in on the basis on no actual evidence at all, told us the sky is falling in... you might think some people were worried.
I wonder if Dave's Leaflets will affect the public mood in any significant way whatsoever?
It is quite possible they won't shift a single voter. Way to spend £9m of our money. Good job.
Probably find that for all those that convinced by the propaganda an equal number are aren't best pleased that the government have spent our money on it.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
Indeed. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and communism. I think the UK can cope with some economic dislocation when it exits a trading bloc.
Most of those victories were as part of a multi national alliance.
This just out, I am sure it will have those working class voters queuing up for Remain.
The European Commission has confirmed a legal loophole which allows employers and recruiters to demand workers for UK vacancies speak Eastern European languages as a way to avoid hiring workers from the UK.
The response came in a reply to UKIP employment spokeswoman Jane Collins MEP who has raised concerns about British workers being barred from jobs in the UK by agencies wanting Polish or Romanian speaking candidates.
What a load of irresponsible drivel. No end of companies offer positions only to foreign-language speakers.
Well indeed. Don't people realise fluency in Polish or Romanian is essential for so many entry-level jobs in the UK today? For cleaners, builders, fruit pickers and coffee shop employees there is no more critical skill. Those who don't get simply can't understand modern Britain.
[I'm not as good at this as you, but I'm working on it]
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
A modest effect on business confidence? Very likely. Catastrophic? Plainly not.
As a corporate lawyer dealing with externally facing businesses (most of whom are major employers in the UK) in a variety of sectors all I can tell you is that I've seen that there's been a real change in the last 3 months. The lack of certainty about where next is a very real concern. Still, dismissing it as a load of rubbish should deal with it effectively.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
Indeed. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and communism. I think the UK can cope with some economic dislocation when it exits a trading bloc.
Most of those victories were as part of a multi national alliance.
I wonder if Dave's Leaflets will affect the public mood in any significant way whatsoever?
It is quite possible they won't shift a single voter. Way to spend £9m of our money. Good job.
The leaflets have been dropping on English (only) doormats over the last few days just at the time the IMF's report is headlining the broadcast media. What is that about David Cameron being a lucky general
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
Indeed. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and communism. I think the UK can cope with some economic dislocation when it exits a trading bloc.
Most of those victories were as part of a multi national alliance.
Top message for remain there
''stay in the EU, because we never achieved anything on our own"
You know modern history isn't my forte, but that's a debatable statement.
Spanish Armada - just us (without Scotland, of course) Napoleon - I believe for a time we were the only ones fighting him. If not, we certainly took the leading role in the west. The Kaiser - multi-national throughout. Hitler - for a time, we were his only opposition in Europe. Had we capitulated, the world would be very different Communism - multi-national throughout, US leading. [Also, a cold rather than a hot war, so qualitatively different to the others].
But I'd argue the multi-national coalition aspect favours leaving. We didn't need a superstate in Europe to co-operate with others. Indeed, it was against European superstates that most of those wars were fought.
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
I'm glad somebody else has said that. Everything I've seen suggests that this referendum is having a catastrophic effect in business confidence, blithe assurances aside. It's a truism that business does not like uncertainty but this is magnified here by having no knowledge of what "out" means in practice.
what a load of rubbish
Indeed. We defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, and communism. I think the UK can cope with some economic dislocation when it exits a trading bloc.
Most of those victories were as part of a multi national alliance.
Indeed... we are still in NATO, so that's covered
Not if Trump has his way.
I've been toying of doing a thread on the EURef, comparing it to Waterloo, with Cameron as Wellington and Corbyn as Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher
He's right though. Uncertainty over the EU vote IS affecting business confidence and work levels. We can see it first hand in our business.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
We've got one shot. This is that shot.
Hm. I wouldn't call what Cameron secured a "shot".
A similar word, one letter different....
If Remain squeaks home by a hopefully very small margin, we'll have a Scotland situation. More will need to be offered. And as the EU slowly decays and disregards its public, more scope will exist for real change and reform.
Let's stay at the party until then, influencing what we have to stomach in the meantime, and then be a driving force in sorting out the real change when the opportunity comes.
That's a far better prospectus than voting Leave and then ending up probably joining EFTA instead and having exactly what we have got now, but with a slightly smaller admission fee and with zero influence as opposed to minimal influence.
I wonder if Dave's Leaflets will affect the public mood in any significant way whatsoever?
It is quite possible they won't shift a single voter. Way to spend £9m of our money. Good job.
The leaflets have been dropping on English (only) doormats over the last few days just at the time the IMF's report is headlining the broadcast media. What is that about David Cameron being a lucky general
Well they do say you make your own luck, or as Gary Player used to say, the harder I practice the luckier I get.
Comments
We'll see.
EDIT: Also 54% is in one poll not the average of polls. If it was the polling average then yes it'd be very tight.
I can deal with despair and defeat.
It's the hope that kills me.
Nationalists = 38% x 90/10 Remain
Others = 11% x 80/20 Remain.
Giving 58% - 42% Remain overall.
This could be the perfect result because Cameron would stay and have serious renegotiations with the EU about free movement of people; the Common Agricultural Policy; and free trade with Commonwealth Countries. Then another referendum after a real reformation of the EU.
China is not Japan. It doesn't need to have a per capita income double that of the US to catch it. Indeed, it doesn't need to be anywhere near the same income levels; sheer weight of numbers will do the trick.
Obviously, simply topping the US's GDP won't make China top dog: the US's institutional, historic and soft power will keep it there for a good while after crossover - but it will come, just as the US surpassed Britain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igi_0IA4blY
1) there isn't any evidence that David Cameron thinks that Britain would be better off out in those circumstances (quite the reverse, given the deal he actually struck)
2) there isn't any evidence that the EU would be begging at the door to get David Cameron to change his mind (quite the reverse; all the evidence seems to suggest that as a group they would prefer Britain to stay in but not on any terms)
As a lawyer, I think this is unfair, and a widely held misconception. Whilst we must avoid conflicts of interest, we are simply representing our diverse client base, advising them on their legal obligations, and articulating and advocating their interests. I have acted for a number of clients I have no great time for personally, others I have had a great passion for and felt able to articulate their cause in my personal capacity. That doesn't make me a whore.
Can't the same charge be leveled at all professional service operations?
Good piece though, otherwise. :-)
I did my Masters Thesis on this (in '04) and then at least the historical link between a stocks present stock value and their future dividends was very strong.
But even if the Chinese population halved, it'd still be double that of the US.
‘No nation in human peacetime history, never mind Britain, has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June. For what? A cold, hard lesson in the demon of hubris, born of delusion that the world owes us a break.’
If ever there was a case study into the idiocy of Corporation Tax, Amazon must be it.
I think LEAVE has a bit of a marketing problem in the 'product' because its far from clear they know what the 'product' is - just vague generalisations about 'taking control' and 'sovereignty' while REMAIN has 'your job might be at risk, prices could go up, and we'd all be worse off.....'
that's pretty strong stuff.
I think we would need a Cabinet Secretary responsible for Brexit negotiations ... potentially the Foreign Secretary or potentially a new position. All this talk of Gove to Chancellor and Osborne to Foreign Secretary kind of misses the point of where the important position will be.
We can keep Cameron as PM and Party Leader but can't have him as PM and Party Leader and a Remainer as negotiator for Brexit too. That would need to be a Leaver and Gove seems like the most serious Leaver there is for that position.
So Gove to Foreign Secretary would be my move. Osborne can stay in the Treasury and ensure we get the budget surplus he has talked about.
In 2004 (ironically) the stock was valued at $54, today it was $736. On average 2 million shares are traded every day, these traders are presumably not waiting for a dividend.
The sooner we get this out of the way and a Remain vote secured, the better.
Then we can have a proper attempt at renegotiating a few years hence when a ballsier PM comes along...
Clickbait.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/tory-meps-wnker-sign-in-european-parliament/
"You are never going to hear me say that Britain could not succeed outside the European Union"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/12112039/Davos-2016-David-Cameron-Brexit-EU-referendum-WEF-live.html
What on earth was Labour thinking?
(Well, I suppose the Labour Party was thinking "let's elect this electable alternative to Cameron", the Union paymasters were thinking "Let's vote in his more malleable leftie brother....")
The real issue is will Arron Banks go down the legal route if Grassroots Out don't get it.
Someone might be able to point them in the right direction.
Trump 46 .. Cruz 30 .. Kasich 16
Clinton 49 .. Sanders 43
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-voters-split-between-clinton-trump-hypothetical-november-matchup-n554306
Oh dearie, dearie me.
Music producer and Reality television star David Gest has died in a London hotel aged 62, a statement from his friend says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11658810/David-Camerons-has-finally-confirmed-that-he-is-pro-European-and-wants-us-to-stay-in.html
71 days to go, I'd be bricking it in Number 10. Without the daily diet of Leave Is Crap on here, the discussion would be more useful.
The nonsense that the Tories couldn't win and Lib Dems were bullet proof was dispelled - along with Ashcroft polls.
Incidentally pretty much only the British would be fool enough to allow that, I can see the French for example going for it in a big way.
2) There is EVERY evidence that the EU would come a-begging. It's what they have done every time a democratic decision has not gone their way. In fact, it's almost as if you need a vote that kicks them in the balls before they'll pay you any attention...
We'll see if things change. Still over two months to go.
[I'm not as good at this as you, but I'm working on it]
''stay in the EU, because we never achieved anything on our own"
You know modern history isn't my forte, but that's a debatable statement.
Spanish Armada - just us (without Scotland, of course)
Napoleon - I believe for a time we were the only ones fighting him. If not, we certainly took the leading role in the west.
The Kaiser - multi-national throughout.
Hitler - for a time, we were his only opposition in Europe. Had we capitulated, the world would be very different
Communism - multi-national throughout, US leading. [Also, a cold rather than a hot war, so qualitatively different to the others].
But I'd argue the multi-national coalition aspect favours leaving. We didn't need a superstate in Europe to co-operate with others. Indeed, it was against European superstates that most of those wars were fought.
I've been toying of doing a thread on the EURef, comparing it to Waterloo, with Cameron as Wellington and Corbyn as Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher
A similar word, one letter different....
If Remain squeaks home by a hopefully very small margin, we'll have a Scotland situation. More will need to be offered. And as the EU slowly decays and disregards its public, more scope will exist for real change and reform.
Let's stay at the party until then, influencing what we have to stomach in the meantime, and then be a driving force in sorting out the real change when the opportunity comes.
That's a far better prospectus than voting Leave and then ending up probably joining EFTA instead and having exactly what we have got now, but with a slightly smaller admission fee and with zero influence as opposed to minimal influence.