So you are saying that all the media saw exactly the same chance to twist it in exactly the same way in spite of the fact you claim it was never actually planned to be said? That is pretty remarkable.
Well, I go by the facts of what he said. That is what we know.
Generally the media copy each other, so I don't think the fact that several of them came out with something which turned out to wrong is very surprising.
Copy each others unpublished on the way to the presses stories? How do they do that Richard?
Err, they do talk to each other you know. And read each other's websites.
LEAVE's behaviour is akin to the school bully-boy. Regardless of who says what, they are just brushed aside with bombastic rhetoric.
By the way, John Major was brilliant ! I remember we underestimated him 1992 and he suckered us.
Yes, it's been happening for a while - many progressive posters have left this blog and it is now a very right-wing place with very little betting information on show. Sad times...
Day after day the usual right-wing fruitcakes come on and post their vitriolic bile - I actually feel sorry for them. Part of me thinks the ban-hammer needs to strike but then again I cherish freedom of expression, however loony that expression is.
Just a comment on the leave reaction to these "reports". They need to gag the muppets who shout conspiracy etc. It makes them and by extension the leave campaign sound a little unhinged. They maybe but the leave campaign isn't.
The issue I have with these "independent" reports is that whilst they haven't been going each others homework, they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise. The thing to do is to point out that the assumptions are counter to what many leavers want; Firstly it assumes the regulations stay as is, we take an age to get a trade deal with the EU and then only start trade deals with others afterwards and then only slowly.
Assumptions 1 and 3 are not likely and that is being polite.
In other news I have a blog, where I have debunked the treasury and OECDs numbers on "GDP per household)
Welcome back to PB Benedict.
Good points... Hopefully someone from LEAVE is tuning in tonight and sees this post.
they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise
That is exactly right, and the list of dubious assumptions is longer still than you allow.
Or do they start with the result they want and then work backwards to create the necessary dubious assumptions ?
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Just a comment on the leave reaction to these "reports". They need to gag the muppets who shout conspiracy etc. It makes them and by extension the leave campaign sound a little unhinged. They maybe but the leave campaign isn't.
The issue I have with these "independent" reports is that whilst they haven't been going each others homework, they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise. The thing to do is to point out that the assumptions are counter to what many leavers want; Firstly it assumes the regulations stay as is, we take an age to get a trade deal with the EU and then only start trade deals with others afterwards and then only slowly.
Assumptions 1 and 3 are not likely and that is being polite.
In other news I have a blog, where I have debunked the treasury and OECDs numbers on "GDP per household)
Welcome back to PB Benedict.
Good points... Hopefully someone from LEAVE is tuning in tonight and sees this post.
they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise
That is exactly right, and the list of dubious assumptions is longer still than you allow.
Or do they start with the result they want and then work backwards to create the necessary dubious assumptions ?
No I don't think so. People who suffer from the same group think error don't necessarily have to be conspiring to do anything wrong.
LEAVE's behaviour is akin to the school bully-boy. Regardless of who says what, they are just brushed aside with bombastic rhetoric.
By the way, John Major was brilliant ! I remember we underestimated him 1992 and he suckered us.
I'm still trying to identify the 2 other recessions you claim the UK has suffered since the Great Labour recession of 2009. Oddly there doesn't seem to be any evidence of such a thing. Surprised not.
Benedict my old comrade. How's your blog? Long time no hear. Much missed. And all that.
I half thought that you had changed persona, become Morris Dancer and developed in the interim an OCD condition for Formula 1 and for calling us Mr, or Mrs. I really did.
Anyway, great to see you again my old mucker. You are still alive and well.....
Just a comment on the leave reaction to these "reports". They need to gag the muppets who shout conspiracy etc. It makes them and by extension the leave campaign sound a little unhinged. They maybe but the leave campaign isn't.
The issue I have with these "independent" reports is that whilst they haven't been going each others homework, they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise. The thing to do is to point out that the assumptions are counter to what many leavers want; Firstly it assumes the regulations stay as is, we take an age to get a trade deal with the EU and then only start trade deals with others afterwards and then only slowly.
Assumptions 1 and 3 are not likely and that is being polite.
In other news I have a blog, where I have debunked the treasury and OECDs numbers on "GDP per household)
Welcome back to PB Benedict.
Good points... Hopefully someone from LEAVE is tuning in tonight and sees this post.
they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise
That is exactly right, and the list of dubious assumptions is longer still than you allow.
I'd be grateful if you could add to them as I am drafting an article for my *cough* blog. Did you know I had one?
I note someone asked if the IMF if their last forecast (against George Osbourne's policy) proved accurate. I would like to know the last time the IMF made an accurate forecast. (Or indeed the OECD or treasury)
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Great to hear from you again Me.
How are things in Brazil ?
A few years ago having the World Cup and then the Olympics was said to symbolise Brazil's economic success and political stability.
Has the been a loss of self-confidence since those happier days ?
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Two words: Hungary. Turkey.
Your point being?
You're the political expert, David. How do you rate Hungary for democracy and respect for minority rights?
Turkey is not a member of the EU, but I do know how the Kurds are treated there. Looks like we will get to find out from first hand testimony pretty soon.
Fair enough - I live in a parallel universe in which there is almost no referendum chat, let alone laughter. We haven't even seen any leaflets round here, let alone campaigning. I assumed my experience was a common one, but clearly not.
It seems similar to my world.
Which is why people at work laughing at Cameron's 'war speech' was so notable.
As I said, the last time they had a similar response was to Corbyn's 'submarines without missiles' idea. I don't think politicians being ridiculed once every four months makes my workplace a hotbed of political involvement.
The main concerns round here are fly tipping and aggressive calls by accident and PPI claims firms. On which latter point today I was told to go to hell by a woman whom I politely told should not be ringing me as we were in TPS. What is the point of the bloody EU if they can't do a directive about this?
I listened to John Longworth on 5 live and everyone is in an international conspiracy with all of them in the pay of the EU and big banks that caused the crash. He was also annoyed that the Government is campaigning to remain. It came over to discredit everyone and only leave are right. He and leave need to understand it is Government policy to remain so of course they will campaign for it. The reporter became frustrated and it was frankly embarrassing to listen to. I know I will be accused as a remainer of being biased but most any reasonable person listening would not have been impressed. Apart from David Cameron it is reported that Nicola Sturgeon is to take on Farage as well in a televised debate. Are vote leave going to apply for another injuction
Sorry but having heard the interview your account is not biased, it is pure fantasy.
You would say that but it is becoming an unsustainable position that everyone is wrong and only leave is right. Leave will need a better narrative by the time of the debates to have any form of creditability
I'm not sure you understand how the world works. The IMF is not going to publish a report that the Treasury disagrees with; they would not publish a report on an internal matter without being requested to do so by the UK government.
But asking for a favour like that will cost us something (although it may well just be cashing in some of the credit for our pushing of Lagarde for her current position)
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
PB's Long Lost Benedict White Returned To Us In Delight Said He (A Lot) I Have A Mighty Fine Blog Although Some Threads He Did Just Clog But More Than A Few Were Amazed And Agog
LEAVE's behaviour is akin to the school bully-boy. Regardless of who says what, they are just brushed aside with bombastic rhetoric.
By the way, John Major was brilliant ! I remember we underestimated him 1992 and he suckered us.
Yes, it's been happening for a while - many progressive posters have left this blog and it is now a very right-wing place with very little betting information on show. Sad times...
Day after day the usual right-wing fruitcakes come on and post their vitriolic bile - I actually feel sorry for them. Part of me thinks the ban-hammer needs to strike but then again I cherish freedom of expression, however loony that expression is.
Yep - alot of it coming from the party you support.
LEAVE's behaviour is akin to the school bully-boy. Regardless of who says what, they are just brushed aside with bombastic rhetoric.
By the way, John Major was brilliant ! I remember we underestimated him 1992 and he suckered us.
Yes, it's been happening for a while - many progressive posters have left this blog and it is now a very right-wing place with very little betting information on show. Sad times...
Day after day the usual right-wing fruitcakes come on and post their vitriolic bile - I actually feel sorry for them. Part of me thinks the ban-hammer needs to strike but then again I cherish freedom of expression, however loony that expression is.
Yep - alot of it coming from the party you support.
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Great to hear from you again Me.
How are things in Brazil ?
A few years ago having the World Cup and then the Olympics was said to symbolise Brazil's economic success and political stability.
Has the been a loss of self-confidence since those happier days ?
Hi Another_Richard!
How are things going?
We still have the Olympics Game but there's no euphoria here.
In the last 90 years, only 5 elected president ended their terms in normal ways, so here we go again. The country is very divided, people are even ending friendships because what's happening. The 2014 election was too divided, the winners weren't able to govern for those that have not elected them and the losers had some problem to understand that they lost.
Unemployment is rising, we are in recession, there's a big investigation going on (Lava-Jato, only here we have the capacity to invent such strange names for our policial investigations) and our most important politicians are under suspicion. The Supreme Court is intervening in Congress in a decision that they admit it has no "legal provision".
Our vice president, now president (at least for a while, although I think for a long while) was also mentioned in the investigation. A president here needs to understand Congress and that Temer understands, but will it work? No idea.
LEAVE's behaviour is akin to the school bully-boy. Regardless of who says what, they are just brushed aside with bombastic rhetoric.
By the way, John Major was brilliant ! I remember we underestimated him 1992 and he suckered us.
Yes, it's been happening for a while - many progressive posters have left this blog and it is now a very right-wing place with very little betting information on show. Sad times...
Day after day the usual right-wing fruitcakes come on and post their vitriolic bile - I actually feel sorry for them. Part of me thinks the ban-hammer needs to strike but then again I cherish freedom of expression, however loony that expression is.
Yep - alot of it coming from the party you support.
Actually it's mostly blue on bluer at the moment.
I think your party took up the headlines for a week of laughter.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
OMG- after AlanBrooke...we have potentially our second candidate for Poet Laureate on these very shores. And I think, for skill, linguistic ability, cleverness and wit....perhaps JackW just edges the great efforts made today by AlanBrooke.
PB's Long Lost Benedict White Returned To Us In Delight Said He (A Lot) I Have A Mighty Fine Blog Although Some Threads He Did Just Clog But More Than A Few Were Amazed And Agog
I think it is supposed to be used to warn the owner or moderators if something has been said that would get them into trouble. In spite of the whines from some quarters everyone is pretty robust and able to take the rough and tumble of the site so I doubt anyone would use it simply because they have had their feelings hurt but if someone makes a posting that might either get the site owners into trouble legally or is so bad (threats etc) that they need to take action then the flag is there for that I believe.
I listened to John Longworth on 5 live and everyone is in an international conspiracy with all of them in the pay of the EU and big banks that caused the crash. He was also annoyed that the Government is campaigning to remain. It came over to discredit everyone and only leave are right. He and leave need to understand it is Government policy to remain so of course they will campaign for it. The reporter became frustrated and it was frankly embarrassing to listen to. I know I will be accused as a remainer of being biased but most any reasonable person listening would not have been impressed. Apart from David Cameron it is reported that Nicola Sturgeon is to take on Farage as well in a televised debate. Are vote leave going to apply for another injuction
Sorry but having heard the interview your account is not biased, it is pure fantasy.
You would say that but it is becoming an unsustainable position that everyone is wrong and only leave is right. Leave will need a better narrative by the time of the debates to have any form of creditability
I'm not sure you understand how the world works. The IMF is not going to publish a report that the Treasury disagrees with; they would not publish a report on an internal matter without being requested to do so by the UK government.
But asking for a favour like that will cost us something (although it may well just be cashing in some of the credit for our pushing of Lagarde for her current position)
Did Britain push for Lagarde ?
If so I don't see what was to be gained from yet another French head of the IMF.
Hasn't there been at least five French IMF heads ?
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Very helpful analysis - thanks, Me. The actual charge, as I understand it, is that she fiddled the Budget forecasts to make the prognosis look better than it was - something which would sadly be considered unremarkable in Britain, and certainly not a cause for impeachment.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
The Fund gives the game away in point 8 of its Article IV conclusion on the UK economy. It states that “the cost of insuring against a UK sovereign default has doubled (albeit from a low level)”. Any normal person who does not follow the derivatives markets would interpret this as a grim warning from global investors.
Yes, the price of credit default swaps on 5-year UK debt – the proxy we all use - has jumped from 17 to 37 since late last year. But the IMF neglected to mention that it has risen from 15 to 33 in Switzerland, from 26 to 43 in France, and from 45 to 65 in Korea.
The jump has almost nothing to do with Brexit, and the IMF knows this perfectly well.
Is that really the best argument from Labour to stay in the EU?
Very powerful arguments. I was waiting for these to be mentioned. It affects people's lives.
Now that the locals are over, Labour is moving onto REMAIN in a big way. Apart from a few eccentric MPs, the party is united to REMAIN.
I'm with the eccentrics. And I think a fair proportion of Corbynistas are too.
Not in Corbyn country - at least, if there are they're not admitting it. The CLP is absolutely solidly pro-Remain - I'm not aware of a single member who is backing Leave.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
If commodities prices hadn't fallen flat, things would be hunky dory.
But actually I have very little sympathy. Anyone who seeks to become a political leader is a prize dickhead in my opinion....and they need to take the ups with the downs.
We should do as Catholics do...and choose someone with humility who really doesn't seek out the job. And then we could get someone as marvellous as Pope Francis.
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Very helpful analysis - thanks, Me. The actual charge, as I understand it, is that she fiddled the Budget forecasts to make the prognosis look better than it was - something which would sadly be considered unremarkable in Britain, and certainly not a cause for impeachment.
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Very helpful analysis - thanks, Me. The actual charge, as I understand it, is that she fiddled the Budget forecasts to make the prognosis look better than it was - something which would sadly be considered unremarkable in Britain, and certainly not a cause for impeachment.
But I can see she wasn't very good at her job.
Hey Nick!
Actually hidding budget deficit is a practice here. Totally normal. The Federal Government cannot borrow money from federal public banks, but she has kind of done that (nothing other governments haven't done before, IMO). Others think it's different because of the scale and the form was also different.
In the UK you take the budget more seriously (believe in me!), here the budget is nothing. The government, after 24 hours of showing changes everything.
She wasn't good, she wasn't a politician. Brazil is not for beginners as we say here.
Actually the claim that Northern Ireland will suffer particularly badly from Brexit is uncontentious, surely.
Yep, if we are going to be controlling immigration from the EU post-Brexit, full checks at the UK/Irish border will have to come into force. That should go down well.
Ireland isn't in Schengen
But it does have free movement for EU citizens, as does NI currently. That will not be the case post-Brexit.
That actually doesn't matter, there would still be need for physical border checks in Ireland unless they decided to join Schengen.
Different checks, though. We will be seeking to prevent people coming into the UK to look for work. Anyone from the EU can enter Ireland to look for work. Currently, if they then head up to NI it doesn't matter. Post-Brexit it will.
I suspect we'd just put checks on the mainland. I don't know how many EU migrants head for the bright lights of Belfast...but assume it's fewer than want to go to London
Once they're in Belfast they can travel freely to London.
Anyone on here with specialist knowledge in brazilian politics and where they see things going from here?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Very helpful analysis - thanks, Me. The actual charge, as I understand it, is that she fiddled the Budget forecasts to make the prognosis look better than it was - something which would sadly be considered unremarkable in Britain, and certainly not a cause for impeachment.
But I can see she wasn't very good at her job.
She's gone for the sins of her party more than anything she's personally done, though the recorded phone call to Lula in which she appeared to be offering him a job solely to give him immunity from prosecution was probably the nail in her coffin.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Apart from being nonsense (Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Switzerland have never been dictatorships). The fact that democracy and respect for minority rights are essential requirements for EU membership is surely a very good thing, and a sign of how influential we are in Europe.
Two words: Hungary. Turkey.
Your point being?
You're the political expert, David. How do you rate Hungary for democracy and respect for minority rights?
Turkey is not a member of the EU, but I do know how the Kurds are treated there. Looks like we will get to find out from first hand testimony pretty soon.
Well you answer your own point about Turkey.
As for Hungary (and several EU members, several in the east but not exclusively), sure, there are some things that could undoubtedly be better but one thing the EU has consciously sought to do - and been sought out to do - was to take in former dictatorships. The intention was that doing so would help to embed the new democracies into their countries. But former dictatorships invariably come with political baggage; it takes time to change cultures and attitudes.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
John Major seems to have conveniently forgotten how his supposed cast iron opt outs (which were actually in a treaty) were overturned in short order by the ECJ. Perhaps he could go back and read his own letter to Jacques Santer where he complained bitterly about how the EU had not abided by the intent of the opt outs and demanded the decision be reversed - which of course it never was.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
No specialist, but I live here and studied Political Science, so it may help.
What do you want to know?
To resume things here. Dilma was never a politician, Lula created her, so when she took the presidency she didn't know how to deal with what we call "coalition presidencialism", and she played down the importance that Congress has here, specially PMDB (the biggest party here).
She is suffering the impeachment not only because of our worsening economy, but because Congress is angry with the fact that they didn't have their demands fulfilled. Impeachment is essencially a political process and what she is suffering is political. Is it a coup? There are a lot of controversies here about this. Some defend that she did with budget deficit was always done, others think it's different.
The Supreme Court, until now, has said that things are being done as the Constitution says, but our Supreme Court is very political too.
What has happened here is something common in parlamentarism, when the prime minister loses support of the Parliament, there's a no vote confidence. The difference is that we are a presidencialism and the fact that she has lost the confidence of the Congress should not be an excuse for her impeachment.
Do I support it? Yes, but it's kind of a coup.
Great to hear from you again Me.
How are things in Brazil ?
A few years ago having the World Cup and then the Olympics was said to symbolise Brazil's economic success and political stability.
Has the been a loss of self-confidence since those happier days ?
Hi Another_Richard!
How are things going?
We still have the Olympics Game but there's no euphoria here.
In the last 90 years, only 5 elected president ended their terms in normal ways, so here we go again. The country is very divided, people are even ending friendships because what's happening. The 2014 election was too divided, the winners weren't able to govern for those that have not elected them and the losers had some problem to understand that they lost.
Unemployment is rising, we are in recession, there's a big investigation going on (Lava-Jato, only here we have the capacity to invent such strange names for our policial investigations) and our most important politicians are under suspicion. The Supreme Court is intervening in Congress in a decision that they admit it has no "legal provision".
Our vice president, now president (at least for a while, although I think for a long while) was also mentioned in the investigation. A president here needs to understand Congress and that Temer understands, but will it work? No idea.
Thanks Me.
The things I always like about this site is the wide range of people from all over the world and how much you can learn from them.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
No, I am suggesting he was a dictator.
So one externally imposed puppet dictator invalidates a century of independent Norwegian politics and is somehow more typical?
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
PB REMAINers may be seeing why there are so few Labour and Green posters on PB comments given the treatment meted out to dissenters from the consensus...
The Leavers have got their pitch forks out for any person or organisation that breathes a word of criticism of Brexit is going to get a dozen nasty comments from the usual suspects. I think most will gradually drop off till after June 23rd and leave them to it.
The Bexit referendum is essentially a Tory party succession battle, spilling over into the body politic, while onlookers are bemused. Only blues and purples are allowed at this fight.
My forecast of GB post Brexit would be akin to Leeds Utd. A once great club plummeted into obscurity plagued by economic mismanagement, and left languishing with little hope.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
No, I am suggesting he was a dictator.
So one externally imposed puppet dictator invalidates a century of independent Norwegian politics and is somehow more typical?
No, but it means Norway was a dictatorship in the last century. You know, the sort of thing I was suggesting.
Shall we talk about Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Portugal and France. Countries that dominate Europe, with a history of dictatorship.
Just a comment on the leave reaction to these "reports". They need to gag the muppets who shout conspiracy etc. It makes them and by extension the leave campaign sound a little unhinged. They maybe but the leave campaign isn't.
The issue I have with these "independent" reports is that whilst they haven't been going each others homework, they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise. The thing to do is to point out that the assumptions are counter to what many leavers want; Firstly it assumes the regulations stay as is, we take an age to get a trade deal with the EU and then only start trade deals with others afterwards and then only slowly.
Assumptions 1 and 3 are not likely and that is being polite.
In other news I have a blog, where I have debunked the treasury and OECDs numbers on "GDP per household)
Welcome back to PB Benedict.
Good points... Hopefully someone from LEAVE is tuning in tonight and sees this post.
they seem to use the same starting point, same model and same assumptions so end up with the same result. Not a surprise
That is exactly right, and the list of dubious assumptions is longer still than you allow.
Or do they start with the result they want and then work backwards to create the necessary dubious assumptions ?
It's a mixture of deliberate skewing and unconscious bias, I think.
The main problem is most of the people producing this stuff either think the EU is a self-evidently good thing or feel they need to produce something that will meet what they think their superiors or clients want.
I've posted on here before that I know the author of one of the studies out there received repeated push back from the client asking 'why can't we make the numbers [ie the GDP negatives] bigger?'
My forecast of GB post Brexit would be akin to Leeds Utd. A once great club plummeted into obscurity plagued by economic mismanagement, and left languishing with little hope.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
Actually the claim that Northern Ireland will suffer particularly badly from Brexit is uncontentious, surely.
Yep, if we are going to be controlling immigration from the EU post-Brexit, full checks at the UK/Irish border will have to come into force. That should go down well.
Ireland isn't in Schengen
But it does have free movement for EU citizens, as does NI currently. That will not be the case post-Brexit.
That actually doesn't matter, there would still be need for physical border checks in Ireland unless they decided to join Schengen.
Different checks, though. We will be seeking to prevent people coming into the UK to look for work. Anyone from the EU can enter Ireland to look for work. Currently, if they then head up to NI it doesn't matter. Post-Brexit it will.
I suspect we'd just put checks on the mainland. I don't know how many EU migrants head for the bright lights of Belfast...but assume it's fewer than want to go to London
Once they're in Belfast they can travel freely to London.
Not with checks on the mainland. NI/RoI can show a driving license or other government ID. Everyone else a passport
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
No, I am suggesting he was a dictator.
So one externally imposed puppet dictator invalidates a century of independent Norwegian politics and is somehow more typical?
Shall we talk about Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Portugal and France. Countries that dominate Europe, with a history of dictatorship.
So starting with Italy, what percentage of its years as a unified country were under democratic governments and what percentage dictator ship?
I make it 20 years of dictatorship vs 136 years of democracy. Why is that 20 years typical and the 136 years of democracy the abberration?
I'm sorry Sunil.... for all your lovely charm, insight and humour, you are an eccentric, and as much as you are interesting, you are unique.
PBCOM is no place to gauge political opinion. We are all either barking mad, on the way to being barking mad, Sectioned and let out after many years (welcome Benedict- I hope your ordeal at Broadmoor has been kind to you), or something else.....
PB REMAINers may be seeing why there are so few Labour and Green posters on PB comments given the treatment meted out to dissenters from the consensus...
The Leavers have got their pitch forks out for any person or organisation that breathes a word of criticism of Brexit is going to get a dozen nasty comments from the usual suspects. I think most will gradually drop off till after June 23rd and leave them to it.
The Bexit referendum is essentially a Tory party succession battle, spilling over into the body politic, while onlookers are bemused. Only blues and purples are allowed at this fight.
Someone below mentioned th Europan hey for democracy. Would this be th Europe that has had dictatorship in pretty much every country in the last century, and several in the last 50 years.
Britain has taught democracy to Europe; they are not listening and prefer technocracy.
Vote leave.
Given that all the countries you mention that are actually in the EU (I.e. Not Helvetia) were overrun by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, except for Ireland, Sweden and Iceland, I suggest that you go and look at the history books.
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
If you are going to include countries invaded by dictatorships as dictatorships then your suggestion that European countries are not democratic in inclination is a rather nonsensical one.
I guess the term Quisling means nothing to you?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quisling was typical of Norwegian politics?
No, I am suggesting he was a dictator.
So one externally imposed puppet dictator invalidates a century of independent Norwegian politics and is somehow more typical?
Shall we talk about Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Portugal and France. Countries that dominate Europe, with a history of dictatorship.
So starting with Italy, what percentage of its years as a unified country were under democratic governments and what percentage dictator ship?
I make it 20 years of dictatorship vs 136 years of democracy. Why is that 20 years typical and the 136 years of democracy the abberration?
20 years an aberration. Snigger.
Maybe stick to the medicine, eh? Leave history to those of us with a bit of appreciation for it.
Did you want to talk about the other histories you seem to have little appreciation of?
I listened to John Longworth on 5 live and everyone is in an international conspiracy with all of them in the pay of the EU and big banks that caused the crash. He was also annoyed that the Government is campaigning to remain. It came over to discredit everyone and only leave are right. He and leave need to understand it is Government policy to remain so of course they will campaign for it. The reporter became frustrated and it was frankly embarrassing to listen to. I know I will be accused as a remainer of being biased but most any reasonable person listening would not have been impressed. Apart from David Cameron it is reported that Nicola Sturgeon is to take on Farage as well in a televised debate. Are vote leave going to apply for another injuction
Sorry but having heard the interview your account is not biased, it is pure fantasy.
You would say that but it is becoming an unsustainable position that everyone is wrong and only leave is right. Leave will need a better narrative by the time of the debates to have any form of creditability
I'm not sure you understand how the world works. The IMF is not going to publish a report that the Treasury disagrees with; they would not publish a report on an internal matter without being requested to do so by the UK government.
But asking for a favour like that will cost us something (although it may well just be cashing in some of the credit for our pushing of Lagarde for her current position)
Did Britain push for Lagarde ?
If so I don't see what was to be gained from yet another French head of the IMF.
Hasn't there been at least five French IMF heads ?
Osborne certainly pushed her for something (don't recall if it was IMF). IMF is traditionally headed by a Frenchie, in the way that the Americans get the World Bank.
My forecast of GB post Brexit would be akin to Leeds Utd. A once great club plummeted into obscurity plagued by economic mismanagement, and left languishing with little hope.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
John Major seems to have conveniently forgotten how his supposed cast iron opt outs (which were actually in a treaty) were overturned in short order by the ECJ. Perhaps he could go back and read his own letter to Jacques Santer where he complained bitterly about how the EU had not abided by the intent of the opt outs and demanded the decision be reversed - which of course it never was.
Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
John Major seems to have conveniently forgotten how his supposed cast iron opt outs (which were actually in a treaty) were overturned in short order by the ECJ. Perhaps he could go back and read his own letter to Jacques Santer where he complained bitterly about how the EU had not abided by the intent of the opt outs and demanded the decision be reversed - which of course it never was.
Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
... So what is your favourite forecast of what happens to UK GDP after Brexit? Please show your working.
My favourite forecast will be free owls for everyone.
As it is: Nothing significant is going to happen for two years as that is the period we will remain in the EU and the UK/ EU will in general abide by the treaties already in force.
I expect GDP after that to be broadly unchanged - given goodwill on the EU that they respect our decision. I expect minimal tariffs on EU produce and this will be reciprocated. This MAY be at the cost of having to impose a proportion of EU tariffs on imports from other countries, to reduce competition with the EU - but at least we will keep 100% of import duties rather than the 25% we do now.
I expect the UK economy to grow after the two year period as more money is spent in the UK itself rather than on countries in Eastern Europe. This reduction in the loss of money supply will allow more money to circulate - thereby reducing the loss of tax revenue.
During this 2-year period, I would expect trade deals to be organised with countries such as Australia, BRICS to take effect after the departure from the EU. Any gap in the closure will be at worst on WTO rules - which aren't that onerous.
In the medium term, I expect that the Government will not have to borrow so much money as it will not need to pay the same amount for the additional costs of increased population (by 2030 unless we leave there will have to be an additional 12.5% spent on the NHS/ Schools etc over and above the extra amount required now to correct the extreme pressures on our resources - and we don't have the money for that.) England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe.
I expect that London, being outside EU regulation and taxes such as the Financial Transaction Tax will continue to play a major role in financial services (banking/ insurance). Modern technology now makes location pretty much irrelevant.
I do NOT expect house prices to crash. That is based on supply/ demand and at the moment in many places demand far outstrips supply. (House prices where I live are very cheap - because a lot of the North East of England has not yet suffered the increased demand faced elsewhere.)
I expect that the UK will maintain its business-friendly position, not least because the EU are trying to force all countries to set the same rate of corporation tax, which will be higher than the UKs 18%. Ireland of course will be worst hit, but that is a sacrifice I am prepared to make - and they can always vote out at a future date.
Comments
With that, his Tunisian experience and EICINPM he's not had the best of years.
Day after day the usual right-wing fruitcakes come on and post their vitriolic bile - I actually feel sorry for them. Part of me thinks the ban-hammer needs to strike but then again I cherish freedom of expression, however loony that expression is.
I half thought that you had changed persona, become Morris Dancer and developed in the interim an OCD condition for Formula 1 and for calling us Mr, or Mrs. I really did.
Anyway, great to see you again my old mucker. You are still alive and well.....
How are things in Brazil ?
A few years ago having the World Cup and then the Olympics was said to symbolise Brazil's economic success and political stability.
Has the been a loss of self-confidence since those happier days ?
Turkey is not a member of the EU, but I do know how the Kurds are treated there. Looks like we will get to find out from first hand testimony pretty soon.
Fair enough - I live in a parallel universe in which there is almost no referendum chat, let alone laughter. We haven't even seen any leaflets round here, let alone campaigning. I assumed my experience was a common one, but clearly not.
It seems similar to my world.
Which is why people at work laughing at Cameron's 'war speech' was so notable.
As I said, the last time they had a similar response was to Corbyn's 'submarines without missiles' idea. I don't think politicians being ridiculed once every four months makes my workplace a hotbed of political involvement.
The main concerns round here are fly tipping and aggressive calls by accident and PPI claims firms. On which latter point today I was told to go to hell by a woman whom I politely told should not be ringing me as we were in TPS. What is the point of the bloody EU if they can't do a directive about this?
Harrow East
Goldsmith 49.2%
Khan 35%
Harrow West
Khan 43%
Goldsmith 39%
Brent North
Khan 37.5%
Goldsmith 35.2%
Hendon
Goldsmith 49.6
Khan 35.8
Finchley
Goldsmith 47.4
Khan 35.3
Hampstead/Kilburn
Khan 47.6
Goldsmith 31.5
Croydon Central
Goldsmith 39.6
Khan 39.6
Ealing Central
Khan 41.4
Goldsmith 36.5
Enfield North
Khan 44.5
Goldsmith 36.5
Enfield Soutgate
Goldsmith 40.9
Khan 40.7
Ilford North
Goldsmith 43.1
Khan 40.5
Hammersmith
Khan 47.9
Goldsmith 30.7
Westminster North
Khan 47
Goldsmith 35.2
But asking for a favour like that will cost us something (although it may well just be cashing in some of the credit for our pushing of Lagarde for her current position)
Then again, I'm pleased you didn't refute my suggestion that Europe actively embraces technocracy.
Some of us are better than that.
Vote leave.
Returned To Us In Delight
Said He (A Lot) I Have A Mighty Fine Blog
Although Some Threads He Did Just Clog
But More Than A Few Were Amazed And Agog
EU contagion fears spread.
How are things going?
We still have the Olympics Game but there's no euphoria here.
In the last 90 years, only 5 elected president ended their terms in normal ways, so here we go again. The country is very divided, people are even ending friendships because what's happening. The 2014 election was too divided, the winners weren't able to govern for those that have not elected them and the losers had some problem to understand that they lost.
Unemployment is rising, we are in recession, there's a big investigation going on (Lava-Jato, only here we have the capacity to invent such strange names for our policial investigations) and our most important politicians are under suspicion. The Supreme Court is intervening in Congress in a decision that they admit it has no "legal provision".
Our vice president, now president (at least for a while, although I think for a long while) was also mentioned in the investigation. A president here needs to understand Congress and that Temer understands, but will it work? No idea.
Oh
... of course I could be entirely wrong :-)
If so I don't see what was to be gained from yet another French head of the IMF.
Hasn't there been at least five French IMF heads ?
But I can see she wasn't very good at her job.
The Fund gives the game away in point 8 of its Article IV conclusion on the UK economy. It states that “the cost of insuring against a UK sovereign default has doubled (albeit from a low level)”. Any normal person who does not follow the derivatives markets would interpret this as a grim warning from global investors.
Yes, the price of credit default swaps on 5-year UK debt – the proxy we all use - has jumped from 17 to 37 since late last year. But the IMF neglected to mention that it has risen from 15 to 33 in Switzerland, from 26 to 43 in France, and from 45 to 65 in Korea.
The jump has almost nothing to do with Brexit, and the IMF knows this perfectly well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/13/imf-meddling-on-brexit-is-scandalous-skulduggery/
The question was when was the last time they produced a report unhelpful to the Treasury, and the answer is the last time they produced a report.
Also many thanks to all you have welcomed me back.
But actually I have very little sympathy. Anyone who seeks to become a political leader is a prize dickhead in my opinion....and they need to take the ups with the downs.
We should do as Catholics do...and choose someone with humility who really doesn't seek out the job. And then we could get someone as marvellous as Pope Francis.
Actually hidding budget deficit is a practice here. Totally normal. The Federal Government cannot borrow money from federal public banks, but she has kind of done that (nothing other governments haven't done before, IMO). Others think it's different because of the scale and the form was also different.
In the UK you take the budget more seriously (believe in me!), here the budget is nothing. The government, after 24 hours of showing changes everything.
She wasn't good, she wasn't a politician. Brazil is not for beginners as we say here.
On the note of disagreeing with the local politicians the IMF does that a lot. It is seldom correct.
1. (it) completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.
2. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.
They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era.
Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/13/imf-meddling-on-brexit-is-scandalous-skulduggery/
Whose predictions were quite categorical
Some said he's a peer
With a wobbly rear
But his ARSE was purely metaphorical
As for Hungary (and several EU members, several in the east but not exclusively), sure, there are some things that could undoubtedly be better but one thing the EU has consciously sought to do - and been sought out to do - was to take in former dictatorships. The intention was that doing so would help to embed the new democracies into their countries. But former dictatorships invariably come with political baggage; it takes time to change cultures and attitudes.
No, I am suggesting he was a dictator.
The things I always like about this site is the wide range of people from all over the world and how much you can learn from them.
Tried to help REMAIN very hard.
Her omissions clearly
Are costing them dearly
And she'll be hanged with the nearest lanyard.
No, but it means Norway was a dictatorship in the last century. You know, the sort of thing I was suggesting.
Shall we talk about Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Portugal and France. Countries that dominate Europe, with a history of dictatorship.
The main problem is most of the people producing this stuff either think the EU is a self-evidently good thing or feel they need to produce something that will meet what they think their superiors or clients want.
I've posted on here before that I know the author of one of the studies out there received repeated push back from the client asking 'why can't we make the numbers [ie the GDP negatives] bigger?'
I make it 20 years of dictatorship vs 136 years of democracy. Why is that 20 years typical and the 136 years of democracy the abberration?
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
That is part of the standard programme of work.
This is a special report, announced in the middle of an internal debate, at a joint press conference with the Chancellor.
You really are naive if you think this wasn't hardwired.
PBCOM is no place to gauge political opinion. We are all either barking mad, on the way to being barking mad, Sectioned and let out after many years (welcome Benedict- I hope your ordeal at Broadmoor has been kind to you), or something else.....
Maybe stick to the medicine, eh? Leave history to those of us with a bit of appreciation for it.
Did you want to talk about the other histories you seem to have little appreciation of?
Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to
ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses
and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The
other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without
which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that
the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged
when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected
would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article
118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government,
and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is
unacceptable and must be remedied
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental
Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government
intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at
both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to
the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the
Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they
form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how
new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article
118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social
Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of
European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major"
YET ANOTHER NEW PRO-REMAIN THREAD!
Some things never change.
As it is: Nothing significant is going to happen for two years as that is the period we will remain in the EU and the UK/ EU will in general abide by the treaties already in force.
I expect GDP after that to be broadly unchanged - given goodwill on the EU that they respect our decision. I expect minimal tariffs on EU produce and this will be reciprocated. This MAY be at the cost of having to impose a proportion of EU tariffs on imports from other countries, to reduce competition with the EU - but at least we will keep 100% of import duties rather than the 25% we do now.
I expect the UK economy to grow after the two year period as more money is spent in the UK itself rather than on countries in Eastern Europe. This reduction in the loss of money supply will allow more money to circulate - thereby reducing the loss of tax revenue.
During this 2-year period, I would expect trade deals to be organised with countries such as Australia, BRICS to take effect after the departure from the EU. Any gap in the closure will be at worst on WTO rules - which aren't that onerous.
In the medium term, I expect that the Government will not have to borrow so much money as it will not need to pay the same amount for the additional costs of increased population (by 2030 unless we leave there will have to be an additional 12.5% spent on the NHS/ Schools etc over and above the extra amount required now to correct the extreme pressures on our resources - and we don't have the money for that.) England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe.
I expect that London, being outside EU regulation and taxes such as the Financial Transaction Tax will continue to play a major role in financial services (banking/ insurance). Modern technology now makes location pretty much irrelevant.
I do NOT expect house prices to crash. That is based on supply/ demand and at the moment in many places demand far outstrips supply. (House prices where I live are very cheap - because a lot of the North East of England has not yet suffered the increased demand faced elsewhere.)
I expect that the UK will maintain its business-friendly position, not least because the EU are trying to force all countries to set the same rate of corporation tax, which will be higher than the UKs 18%. Ireland of course will be worst hit, but that is a sacrifice I am prepared to make - and they can always vote out at a future date.