[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
90% of Guardian readers support Remain, as do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Emma Thompson.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
I am struck by how many people see the EU's greatest function as a leash to restrain a Tory government.
Probably, more accurately, restrain the right wing of the Tory party but yes, I think a lot of left of centre voters prefer what they get from Brussels than what they would get from Gove/IDS/Boris. Call in Realpolitik if you like.
Mr. F, hmm. There's an interesting debate about whether [historically] cruelty is inherently bad in a monarch. If it helps maintain order, there's an argument for it (Basil II's approach to prisoner welfare cause his long-term rival to suffer a fatal heart attack).
On France: Henry VIII may've failed to conquer it but he did better than John Softsword.
Thanks @Runnymede for pointing us to the IFO paper on TTIP. The claimed effects of trade creation/diversion on the UK are astonishingly large and positive. Especially encouraging as it is written disinterestedly as far as the UK is concerned, unlike yesterday's Treasury paper. The arguments in this country seem to have been very much at the level of "save the NHS from the evils of TTIP" when one is accosted outside a supermarket by "campaigners". Brexit with TTIP would seem to be a pretty good option to me.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Charles I and - if we're going for monarchs rather than kings - Mary I too.
This seems strange. 'Please note that by applying for LEAVE tickets you are confirming that you expect to vote in favour of leaving the EU'. - How are they going to filter that
By asking them 'Are you a fruitcake, loony or racist?'
Good response but on a wider issue is this how they put together their question time audience
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Worst King of England - "William III" usurping them all - he has form.
I assume Frank Wittelsbach of Munich is a good one then?
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
That's not really relevant to these figures. There was still a net creation of jobs in the UK, just that the number of people entering the jobs market was higher than that. If anything this is a good sign that the market is still pretty robust in that people who were previously inactive are now actively seeking work, possibly due to the living wage pay rise.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
The German paper on TTIP posted by @runnymede earlier is very interesting. The magnitudes of the effects they show seem very large, however, and not just in the countries directly involved. For example, in the 'deep liberalization' scenario, a 7.4% drop in per-capita income in Australia, which wouldn't be a signatory. Is that plausible?
You don't need to be a signatory to be affected. Read pages 28-29 to see why.
I understand that, it was the magnitude of the changes which surprised me. Do you think they are plausible?
Under the assumptions they have used, yes. Though note the caveats they put in re. places like Australia. And there will always be a variety of estimates of such things.
Mr. Pulpstar, saw a Horizon edition some years ago which raised the theory that the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted and wiped out 90%+ of the human race (at an early stage) which drastically reduced genetic diversity.
Mr. Pulpstar, saw a Horizon edition some years ago which raised the theory that the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted and wiped out 90%+ of the human race (at an early stage) which drastically reduced genetic diversity.
Lake Toba. Yellowstone hasn't errupted for over 600,000 years, which is too long ago.
If it went off any time soon, it'd dent Ted Cruz's chances I think.
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
That's not really relevant to these figures. There was still a net creation of jobs in the UK, just that the number of people entering the jobs market was higher than that. If anything this is a good sign that the market is still pretty robust in that people who were previously inactive are now actively seeking work, possibly due to the living wage pay rise.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
I agree but I do think the fall in sterling v the euro since Aug 15 to now is a cause of concern. I received 1.41 euro in Aug and it is now down to 1.23
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Worst King of England - "William III" usurping them all - he has form.
I assume Frank Wittelsbach of Munich is a good one then?
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Worst King of England - "William III" usurping them all - he has form.
I assume Frank Wittelsbach of Munich is a good one then?
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
That's not really relevant to these figures. There was still a net creation of jobs in the UK, just that the number of people entering the jobs market was higher than that. If anything this is a good sign that the market is still pretty robust in that people who were previously inactive are now actively seeking work, possibly due to the living wage pay rise.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
I agree but I do think the fall in sterling v the euro since Aug 15 to now is a cause of concern. I received 1.41 euro in Aug and it is now down to 1.23
1.26 and that's more a reaction to our awful current account deficit and consumption based GDP growth than the threat of Brexit.
Thanks @Runnymede for pointing us to the IFO paper on TTIP. The claimed effects of trade creation/diversion on the UK are astonishingly large and positive. Especially encouraging as it is written disinterestedly as far as the UK is concerned, unlike yesterday's Treasury paper. The arguments in this country seem to have been very much at the level of "save the NHS from the evils of TTIP" when one is accosted outside a supermarket by "campaigners". Brexit with TTIP would seem to be a pretty good option to me.
I think this is an important point. Almost none of the UK-based analyses we have seen in recent weeks can be described as independent. Many are blatantly skewed, I'm afraid, some more subtly so e.g. by choosing methodologies they know will produce a certain kind of result.
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
That's not really relevant to these figures. There was still a net creation of jobs in the UK, just that the number of people entering the jobs market was higher than that. If anything this is a good sign that the market is still pretty robust in that people who were previously inactive are now actively seeking work, possibly due to the living wage pay rise.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
I agree but I do think the fall in sterling v the euro since Aug 15 to now is a cause of concern. I received 1.41 euro in Aug and it is now down to 1.23
Yes, it's bloody marvellous. Interest rates up next please.
Anyway, I'm off to contemplate an obscene limerick about the Turkish president. Most enjoyed the discussion of kings and volcanoes. Assuming the boiler gets fixed, I shall return.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
Anyway, I'm off to contemplate an obscene limerick about the Turkish president. Most enjoyed the discussion of kings and volcanoes. Assuming the boiler gets fixed, I shall return.
There was an old president of Turkey who's laws were wrong and all jerky He couldn't stand blame that his laws were all lame and protested to old Mrs. Merkey
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
That's not really relevant to these figures. There was still a net creation of jobs in the UK, just that the number of people entering the jobs market was higher than that. If anything this is a good sign that the market is still pretty robust in that people who were previously inactive are now actively seeking work, possibly due to the living wage pay rise.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
I agree but I do think the fall in sterling v the euro since Aug 15 to now is a cause of concern. I received 1.41 euro in Aug and it is now down to 1.23
1.26 and that's more a reaction to our awful current account deficit and consumption based GDP growth than the threat of Brexit.
With a current account deficit at about 5% of GDP, and monetary policy like pushing a string, if effect of the Brexit uncertainty is to push sterling lower it will be a good thing.
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The detail is the key here, the total number of people in employment rose but the number of inactive people fell faster, usually that is a sign that people who were previously discouraged are actively seeking work and is a good sign of reducing long term unemployment.
Absolutely right, Max. I find the lack of focus on discouraged workers in employment statistics extremely annoying.
I agree however the reduction in economic inactivity has been largely a reduction in the number of retirees, which means we have to confront the issue that people don't stop working or not working when they hit 65 any more.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
When did the Neolithics replace the Lithics?
Neolithics replaced the Mesolithics.
I like the Mesolithic. It was when we finally threw off the shackles of European dominance and struck out on our own as an independent island.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
Neolithic starts around 4000BC in Britain. Before that it is the Mesolithic back to around 9000BC.
Anyway, I'm off to contemplate an obscene limerick about the Turkish president. Most enjoyed the discussion of kings and volcanoes. Assuming the boiler gets fixed, I shall return.
There was an old president of Turkey who's laws were wrong and all jerky He couldn't stand blame that his laws were all lame and protested to old Mrs. Merkey
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
I think class is a big marker. People who are middle class, and even more so in a profession like mine can move to a similar role very easily in another country, almost wherever it is in the world.
I have worked in Australia and New Zealand and my dad found working in France as easy as the USA, in corporate sales education. Indeed he found France easier than the USA.
Despite living in the USA for 5 years as a teenager, and regularly visiting there since on medical business (mostly research), I still find it an alien place. The attitudes to things like guns, healthcare, social inequality, racial mixing and the role of religion in politics (despite being a Christian churchgoer myself) makes me realise how European I am. There is a connection to these common values that I encounter with fellow Europeans that resonates, even though the Americans that I deal with are almost all liberal university people by US standards. I appreciate that rightwingers may well feel differently, particularly those that quite like "socially conservative" values, or at least Western "socially conservative" values.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
He's actually researched his stuff and staying on one topic.
He's learning.
Better from Jezza, although his benchmark is pitifully low.
Indeed, he was doing well until he quoted 10 year old kids using Labour attack lines and Dave then using the McDonalds story to get a good jibe in at Labour
That was almost a coherent and co-ordinated set of questions which will make any compromise much more difficult for Cameron. Almost an adequate performance.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Mr. F, not au fait with the others. Why Henry VIII, in particular?
He squandered vast amounts of money failing to conquer France, and was a total shit to boot. Even by the standards of his time, he was viciously cruel.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
Nothing official IMHO. The mildly amusing situation as pointed out by a legal Professor at a speech I attended, is that under the current EU rules we could have UK Wills being accepted by Italy and France etc but not in reverse. It is however possible that the French may choose to close off the anomaly....
I heard that on r5L that Leicester county council is planning to sell services back to the acadamised schools they'll lose control from.
Not sure on the whole forced academisation thing, I'd have thought giving parents the choice via a consultation for each proposed school might be a better idea.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. It's not an argument that appeals to me, and it's one reason why I'll be voting Leave. Certainly, if we vote Remain, the drive to harmonise everything will continue.
When it comes to inheritance laws, there's no right or wrong answer (as with so many national differences). Forced heirship treats surviving spouses fairly badly, by requiring much of the deceased's estate to go to children. OTOH, our system of testamentary freedom allows surviving spouses to disinherit their own children.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
I think for many people this referendum is a very agonising choice.
I have an EUsceptic friend of mine who is reading every document he can, and is making SeanT look consistent.
He's a partner in a City law firm and is really stressed about it.
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
I don't know why you're talking like that's wrong. It seems pretty obvious that if there's a 1/3 chance you'll tear up the market access agreements that lots of businesses have been relying on for the last few decades and replace them with nobody-knows-what, businesses that may need to downsize if that happens are going to hold off hiring for a bit and wait and see if it does.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere.
Is there? What is it? I don't think I've ever heard anyone anywhere in Europe make it.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
Nothing official IMHO. The mildly amusing situation as pointed out by a legal Professor at a speech I attended, is that under the current EU rules we could have UK Wills being accepted by Italy and France etc but not in reverse. It is however possible that the French may choose to close off the anomaly....
It's long been the case that foreign wills that have been validly executed will usually be admitted to Probate in this country.
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
Dave pushing the Sadiq Khan is an extremist line quite strongly
I haven't been able to watch it today - was the line "sides with extremists" as Andrew Sparrow is quoting on Guardian live blog? That's moving on from dog whistle politics to waving a nice juicy marrowbone around if so - though whether it's strategy or just Cameron's habitual carelessness with words once he gets angry is harder to say.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed?
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. It's not an argument that appeals to me, and it's one reason why I'll be voting Leave. Certainly, if we vote Remain, the drive to harmonise everything will continue.
When it comes to inheritance laws, there's no right or wrong answer (as with so many national differences). Forced heirship treats surviving spouses fairly badly, by requiring much of the deceased's estate to go to children. OTOH, our system of testamentary freedom allows surviving spouses to disinherit their own children.
If we stay, and harmonisation continues, then our degree of economic integration with the EU will become even greater and it'll be even harder to Leave in future. All the economic arguments currently being used will have even greater weight, even as our sovereignty is diminished.
That's another reason I'm voting Leave and am not relaxed about 'another' referendum 'someday' in the future.
Is a common inheritance law proposed? I'd have thought it came under the doctrine of law being as local as possible in the EU - things like environmental rules clearly need to be cross-frontier so we don't get polluted to death by neighbours, but it's not obvious that inheritance does. Or are you positing a single European country with unitary centralised government, which really is so far off as not to be worth worrying about? Even EUphiles like me are only in favour of confederalism, not some sort of centralised state.
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
The real purpose of such apparently unnecessary harmonisation is of course to slowly create a 'European' identity, or so the proposers of it hope.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed?
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. It's not an argument that appeals to me, and it's one reason why I'll be voting Leave. Certainly, if we vote Remain, the drive to harmonise everything will continue.
When it comes to inheritance laws, there's no right or wrong answer (as with so many national differences). Forced heirship treats surviving spouses fairly badly, by requiring much of the deceased's estate to go to children. OTOH, our system of testamentary freedom allows surviving spouses to disinherit their own children.
If we stay, and harmonisation continues, then our degree of economic integration with the EU will become even greater and it'll be even harder to Leave in future. All the economic arguments currently being used will have even greater weight, even as our sovereignty is diminished.
That's another reason I'm voting Leave and am not relaxed about 'another' referendum 'someday' in the future.
Cameron flushed, unconvincing and hesitant on migration.
It really shows the nonsense of the Treasury report. One reason it assumes higher GDP is that immigration will continue at the rate of over 200K a year removing a break that might otherwise be on our economy as we move closer to full employment. Cameron has just said that his agreement is going to restrict that immigration. If he is right (big if) then growth will be lower than the forecast and the difference between in and out will be less.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed?
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. It's not an argument that appeals to me, and it's one reason why I'll be voting Leave. Certainly, if we vote Remain, the drive to harmonise everything will continue.
.
If we stay, and harmonisation continues, then our degree of economic integration with the EU will become even greater and it'll be even harder to Leave in future. All the economic arguments currently being used will have even greater weight, even as our sovereignty is diminished.
That's another reason I'm voting Leave and am not relaxed about 'another' referendum 'someday' in the future.
This might be our only chance.
Sure, the government's main argument for Remain is essentially that it is simply too disruptive, at an administrative level, for leaving the EU to be a viable option. And, it will always be administratively disruptive to leave.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
Problem is, that comment could even apply to tidy-sameness such as ensuring that railways that cross land borders are the same gauge either side, or that mobile phones work seamlessly with no change in cost in two adjacent countries. Nobody opposes all harmonisation, and everybody objects to some harmonisations. Most (all?) progress is a result of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Comments
Probably, more accurately, restrain the right wing of the Tory party but yes, I think a lot of left of centre voters prefer what they get from Brussels than what they would get from Gove/IDS/Boris. Call in Realpolitik if you like.
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/unemployment-rate-rises-scotland-not-any-other-uk-nation
On France: Henry VIII may've failed to conquer it but he did better than John Softsword.
The claimed effects of trade creation/diversion on the UK are astonishingly large and positive. Especially encouraging as it is written disinterestedly as far as the UK is concerned, unlike yesterday's Treasury paper.
The arguments in this country seem to have been very much at the level of "save the NHS from the evils of TTIP" when one is accosted outside a supermarket by "campaigners".
Brexit with TTIP would seem to be a pretty good option to me.
I really wish that the media wouldn't report on the "unemployment rate" and instead report on the absolute employment rate which hit another record high. The unemployment rate is a poor measure because it is too easily affected by reducing or raising inactivity. In the US the unemployment rate is similar to ours and yet the absolute employment rate is just 68% compared to our 74%. The difference lies in the inactivity rate which most people don't even bother looking at.
Though we should be grateful he abdicated.
We've been very lucky with the current Queen and her father being so awesome
Corporate taxation, now - I'd go for centralisation for that. Companies slip into the least-regulated least-taxed bit far too easily.
On the wider theme, Polruan's erudite analysis of cultural traditions is pretty convincing. Globally, it seems to me that the urban-rural cultural divide is often bigger than the divide between countries. London and East Grinstead are very different places, as are New York and rural Utah, but someone from London would feel quite at home in New York, and someone from East Grinstead might well find rural Utah quite pleasant. Similarly, Warsaw isn't that different in culture (though arguably more elegant in parts), but rural Poland is another world.
https://twitter.com/jamieross7/status/722740861356883968
who's laws were wrong and all jerky
He couldn't stand blame
that his laws were all lame
and protested to old Mrs. Merkey
I like the Mesolithic. It was when we finally threw off the shackles of European dominance and struck out on our own as an independent island.
(That was an archaeological joke by the way)
Going into the 2011 Election Annabel Goldie was indeed more popular than Ruth Davidson is now
2011 Goldie +10
2016 Davidson +7
For Comparison
2011 Salmond +33
2016 Sturgeon +48
He's actually researched his stuff and staying on one topic.
He's learning.
Is Cameron foaming at the mouth; or is it just bile?
Sadly, another one of Osborne's meddlings that is harming this Govt.
I have worked in Australia and New Zealand and my dad found working in France as easy as the USA, in corporate sales education. Indeed he found France easier than the USA.
Despite living in the USA for 5 years as a teenager, and regularly visiting there since on medical business (mostly research), I still find it an alien place. The attitudes to things like guns, healthcare, social inequality, racial mixing and the role of religion in politics (despite being a Christian churchgoer myself) makes me realise how European I am. There is a connection to these common values that I encounter with fellow Europeans that resonates, even though the Americans that I deal with are almost all liberal university people by US standards. I appreciate that rightwingers may well feel differently, particularly those that quite like "socially conservative" values, or at least Western "socially conservative" values.
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
What about Henry VIII?
Dave pushing the Sadiq Khan is an extremist line quite strongly
Not sure on the whole forced academisation thing, I'd have thought giving parents the choice via a consultation for each proposed school might be a better idea.
When it comes to inheritance laws, there's no right or wrong answer (as with so many national differences). Forced heirship treats surviving spouses fairly badly, by requiring much of the deceased's estate to go to children. OTOH, our system of testamentary freedom allows surviving spouses to disinherit their own children.
I have an EUsceptic friend of mine who is reading every document he can, and is making SeanT look consistent.
He's a partner in a City law firm and is really stressed about it.
Or the intervention of the Men With Polonium....
Noticeable that Cameron is facing unfriendly questions for >75 % of the time.
That's another reason I'm voting Leave and am not relaxed about 'another' referendum 'someday' in the future.
This might be our only chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_inheritance_among_various_peoples
EurophileBetting.comPoliticalBetting.com thread that isn'tEurophile Propaganda"Robust Analysis" from TSE!