Mr. Matt, five? I'm not a European affairs journalist.
State aid rules can slow down responding to situations, whether that's the early stage of a banking crisis or steel firms. The EU wants to regulate financial affairs which will harm us as our financial sector outweighs that of any other EU nation (maybe all others combined). The EU's desire for corporation tax harmonisation will make it more difficult to encourage business investment.
That's just off the top of my head.
Now, why don't you give me five (if you think that's a reasonable number) or three (the number I came up with during a short writing break) an EU army, QMV, and EU tax harmonisation is in our national interest?
Mr. P, you don't know when we'll have a recession inside or outside the EU.
We know there will be one if we leave now.
Do we ?
As Morris Dancer says, we are likely due a recession anyway. Our current account deficit is second only behind the US in absolute terms, and - relative to GDP - is the largest of any developed country in the world.
External debts - i.e. money owed by the UK to people outside the UK - are horrendous. It used to be a sensible rule of thumb that external liabilities could not pass 120% of GDP without a "correction". We're now close to 180%. Nowhere else in the world comes close. That makes us incredibly vulnerable whenever the wind turns.
And, despite this being the fifth (or so) year of economic expansion, we're still running a large budget deficit (also pretty much the largest in the developed world).
'But beneath the sanctimonious proclamations of moral superiority lurked an eternal truth: it was just about cash. Cold, hard, cash. And, of course, politics. There’s nothing wrong with that but it’s as well to be honest about such things. Something to remember next time."
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
Cravendale Milk is treated for longevity so it lasts better. It is different to regular milk. I buy it for when I am camping, as it doesn't turn for at least 4-5 days even without refrigeration.
And with refrigeration it lasts much longer than regular milk both opened and unopened. It is a different product.
The secret is to seek out value ...... Aldi's "Cowbelle" Fresh Filter Milk, produced by Arla (who also produce "Cravendale") costs 99p for TWO LITRES, compared with £1.15 for ONE LITRE of Cravendale as charged by the greedy supermarkets.
How do Aldi/Lidl make a profit? I know they don’t sell brand-leaders but the differences are stark.
IDS still on top form today on Sky - lots of plain speaking and confident. He's not taking any nonsense from interviewers.
Which is what the recent "trust" rating confirms compared to Cameron. I do worry about using Gove in the few weeks left. Gove's ratings are slightly under Cameron's. Iain Dale is very positive about Andrea Leadsom in ConHome today.
Me two, Gove doesn't have the common touch at all.
No, but he can at least string a positive credible argument together.
Unlike that shockingly poor and inept performance by Liam Fox and Diane James last night.
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
Wonder why there are high prices - nothing to do with the CAP was it?????????????
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
Cravendale Milk is treated for longevity so it lasts better. It is different to regular milk. I buy it for when I am camping, as it doesn't turn for at least 4-5 days even without refrigeration.
And with refrigeration it lasts much longer than regular milk both opened and unopened. It is a different product.
The secret is to seek out value ...... Aldi's "Cowbelle" Fresh Filter Milk, produced by Arla (who also produce "Cravendale") costs 99p for TWO LITRES, compared with £1.15 for ONE LITRE of Cravendale as charged by the greedy supermarkets.
How do Aldi/Lidl make a profit? I know they don’t sell brand-leaders but the differences are stark.
They also pay their staff above the rates of British owned supermarkets.
The advantages of Euro-competition in the single market for British consumers....
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
It's a compelling piece.
But, as per @SouthamObserver's point, it assumes that this is our last chance. It is not. Leavers set aside a particular flavour of vitriol whenever it is pointed out that we can have another referendum in future (or indeed vote in a party whose manifesto pledge is to leave the EU).
I think the problem is more that they fear a future govt will agree to ever closer union; their concern is not so much the EU's move to a superstate, as our own government's acquiescence in that move.
Many of them can't reconcile the concepts of "future craven UK govt" and "democratically-elected future craven UK govt".
I don't fear any "big bang" approach to political union, which could just as easily run into trouble on the Continent as here.
I do fear the slow, incremental, steady transfer of power from national, to supranational institutions, always presented as a pragmatic tidying-up exercise.
But certain things simply couldn't be a pragmatic exercise: joining the Euro, a European army, a direct European income tax, a single EU foreign ministry - and so on. Ultimate control of various levers of power are binary, either you have them or you don't, and so the transfer of any cannot be presented as a minor incremental change. It might be that the change is supported or it might not but it couldn't be done by slight of hand.
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
I responded slightly precipitously there. I was meaning the EU army rather than the bananas (which I did know wasn't the urban myth it's sometimes taken for - though is now a very dated example).
As I've said, the EU army won't replace national armies. What I imagine they'll do is have it run alongside, slowly shifting resources from national armies to Euroland's army.
A new tax (Tobin, for example) they might argue to be collected directly by Brussels.
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
Wonder why there are high prices - nothing to do with the CAP was it?????????????
I think that the only bananas grown in the EU are those in Madeira, so I don't think CAP comes into it.
Indeed the EU has made bananas cheaper. Until the eighties we had preferential imports to more expensive Carribean bananas from Commonwealth countries, and the French used similar arrangements. When Maggie passed the single market through parliament these arrangements became obsolete, and we now buy cheaper "dollar" bananas on the world market.
I am strangely knowledgeable about British Banana Policy as I used to flatshare with a civil servant who worked on the issues.
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
Cravendale Milk is treated for longevity so it lasts better. It is different to regular milk. I buy it for when I am camping, as it doesn't turn for at least 4-5 days even without refrigeration.
And with refrigeration it lasts much longer than regular milk both opened and unopened. It is a different product.
The secret is to seek out value ...... Aldi's "Cowbelle" Fresh Filter Milk, produced by Arla (who also produce "Cravendale") costs 99p for TWO LITRES, compared with £1.15 for ONE LITRE of Cravendale as charged by the greedy supermarkets.
How do Aldi/Lidl make a profit? I know they don’t sell brand-leaders but the differences are stark.
They also pay their staff above the rates of British owned supermarkets.
The advantages of Euro-competition in the single market for British consumers....
Wages in supermarkets has absolutely nothing to do with the single market
Mr. Matt, five? I'm not a European affairs journalist.
State aid rules can slow down responding to situations, whether that's the early stage of a banking crisis or steel firms. The EU wants to regulate financial affairs which will harm us as our financial sector outweighs that of any other EU nation (maybe all others combined). The EU's desire for corporation tax harmonisation will make it more difficult to encourage business investment.
That's just off the top of my head.
Now, why don't you give me five (if you think that's a reasonable number) or three (the number I came up with during a short writing break) an EU army, QMV, and EU tax harmonisation is in our national interest?
You made the claim. You should be able to justify it. You've come up with subsidising failing industries. I've not made a sweeping statement with no real thought about what I actually mean.
Mr. P, you don't know when we'll have a recession inside or outside the EU.
We know there will be one if we leave now.
Even IDS says that is a price worth paying. Others disagree
No we don't.
NIESR (hardly a pro-Brexit outfit) says 1.7% growth in 2017. Bear in mind we'd still be in the EU for at least 2 years. The Treasury says it'll be basically dead flat.
And there are all sorts of policy levers and mechanisms the Government can use to reassure business and stimulate the economy. None of which it is currently including in its forecasts.
'But beneath the sanctimonious proclamations of moral superiority lurked an eternal truth: it was just about cash. Cold, hard, cash. And, of course, politics. There’s nothing wrong with that but it’s as well to be honest about such things. Something to remember next time."
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
Wonder why there are high prices - nothing to do with the CAP was it?????????????
I think that the only bananas grown in the EU are those in Madeira, so I don't think CAP comes into it.
Indeed the EU has made bananas cheaper. Until the eighties we had preferential imports to more expensive Carribean bananas from Commonwealth countries, and the French used similar arrangements. When Maggie passed the single market through parliament these arrangements became obsolete, and we now buy cheaper "dollar" bananas on the world market.
I am strangely knowledgeable about British Banana Policy as I used to flatshare with a civil servant who worked on the issues.
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
Cravendale Milk is treated for longevity so it lasts better. It is different to regular milk. I buy it for when I am camping, as it doesn't turn for at least 4-5 days even without refrigeration.
And with refrigeration it lasts much longer than regular milk both opened and unopened. It is a different product.
The secret is to seek out value ...... Aldi's "Cowbelle" Fresh Filter Milk, produced by Arla (who also produce "Cravendale") costs 99p for TWO LITRES, compared with £1.15 for ONE LITRE of Cravendale as charged by the greedy supermarkets.
How do Aldi/Lidl make a profit? I know they don’t sell brand-leaders but the differences are stark.
I would assume it is because in a traditional sale the brand makes a profit and the supermarket makes a profit but by cutting out the brand they are taking the profits the brands would have made. So can make a profit at a lower price by being both brand and market.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
Cravendale Milk is treated for longevity so it lasts better. It is different to regular milk. I buy it for when I am camping, as it doesn't turn for at least 4-5 days even without refrigeration.
And with refrigeration it lasts much longer than regular milk both opened and unopened. It is a different product.
The secret is to seek out value ...... Aldi's "Cowbelle" Fresh Filter Milk, produced by Arla (who also produce "Cravendale") costs 99p for TWO LITRES, compared with £1.15 for ONE LITRE of Cravendale as charged by the greedy supermarkets.
How do Aldi/Lidl make a profit? I know they don’t sell brand-leaders but the differences are stark.
They also pay their staff above the rates of British owned supermarkets.
The advantages of Euro-competition in the single market for British consumers....
Wages in supermarkets has absolutely nothing to do with the single market
Just saying that German supermarkets have both better value and better pay than our domestic ones. The fact that they can easily operate here is an example of the single market.
Mr. Matt, if a business, especially one such as a bank which has wider economic implications, requires short term life-support whilst sustainable arrangements are put in place, that should be possible without needing approval from Brussels.
You've also ignored the desire of Brussels to regulate our financial sector and harmonise corporation tax. Do those things not concern you?
As I've said, the EU army won't replace national armies. What I imagine they'll do is have it run alongside, slowly shifting resources from national armies to Euroland's army.
A new tax (Tobin, for example) they might argue to be collected directly by Brussels.
but simply the creation of either of those would of itself be a major step.
In any case, I don't see how an EU army could run alongside national armies - who commands it, recruits to it, deploys it and so on? What policy is it designed to enforce? It is certainly possible that there might be a proposal for some NATO-equivalent joint structure but that would still be national co-operation rather than a genuinely independent armed service.
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
Indeed ...... the Guardian has now unashamedly produced the begging bowl claiming that: "For just 16p a day you can support the Guardian's independence and award winning journalism"
Not to mention helping to keep the likes of Polly Toynbee in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
Wonder why there are high prices - nothing to do with the CAP was it?????????????
I think that the only bananas grown in the EU are those in Madeira, so I don't think CAP comes into it.
Indeed the EU has made bananas cheaper. Until the eighties we had preferential imports to more expensive Carribean bananas from Commonwealth countries, and the French used similar arrangements. When Maggie passed the single market through parliament these arrangements became obsolete, and we now buy cheaper "dollar" bananas on the world market.
I am strangely knowledgeable about British Banana Policy as I used to flatshare with a civil servant who worked on the issues.
There is still a tarrif, but there used to be preferential tarrifs and also non tarrif barriers to importation of bananas depending on country of origin. That is now history, which is why traditional sources like the Windward islands now do produce far fewer.
Mr. Matt, five? I'm not a European affairs journalist.
State aid rules can slow down responding to situations, whether that's the early stage of a banking crisis or steel firms.
Preventing State Aid is a basic tenant of a free market economy. I would imagine the Blessed Thatcher would have been pushing for rules against government interference at any EU meetings she was at. It simply means that UK producers aren't disadvantaged in the single market.
Also the Banking Crisis (and it looks like the failure of Tata Steel) were resolved without the EU state aid regs causing a problem.
Depressing that the EU debate seems to be turning people back to protectionism.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
Indeed ...... the Guardian has now unashamedly produced the begging bowl claiming that: "For just 16p a day you can support the Guardian's independence and award winning journalism"
Not to mention helping to keep the likes of Polly Toynbee in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Mr. Roger, wanting to leave doesn't make some a fascist...
Mr. D, as an emergency measure, for particular sector, state aid is sometimes (unfortunately) required. When it is, it should happen without needing a rubber stamp from Brussels.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "far right" but if popularity is growing there is a reason for it. People follow their instincts.
Mr. Matt, if a business, especially one such as a bank which has wider economic implications, requires short term life-support whilst sustainable arrangements are put in place, that should be possible without needing approval from Brussels.
You've also ignored the desire of Brussels to regulate our financial sector and harmonise corporation tax. Do those things not concern you?
Wasn't the UK government able to invest in, nationalise, and guarantee the debts of various British banks without interference from the EU?
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
The DT are getting caught in the middle - some paying for online access, but it doesn't apply to smartphones, dropping comments, blogs and less actual content. The Times have gone the other way - modded comments, lots of opinion pieces/journos who engage with readers, full paywall.
Mr. 1000, wasn't permission required to ensure EU state aid rules were met?
On a smaller scale, it's also crackers the Chancellor has to beg Brussels for permission not to put VAT on tampons. It hardly speaks of self-confident sovereignty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't decide what should and should not have a sales tax applied to it.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
That's ridiculous.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
The inevitable result will be cost-cutting on an even greater scale than has been apparent for the past decade.
That's the remark of someone intent on following his perception of his industry down the plughole?
Rather than understand and invest in the replacement market, the 'strategy' - such as it is - is to go further and further downmarket. It is, to reference a different discussion, to play Morecambe rather than Cornwall to tourists.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
The article quotes that two-thirds of the Mail's advertising comes from print. Losing that would be a huge downside even if there is huge cost savings.
Doesn't specify what the Guardian's print advertising is. I suspect less.
They also pay their staff above the rates of British owned supermarkets.
The advantages of Euro-competition in the single market for British consumers....
They pay more to individuals by employing fewer staff overall.
Tescos 260,000 staff - £63bn turnover (£242k per employee) Lidl UK 10,000 staff - £4bn turnover (£400k per employee)
There is an ALDI and a Co-op within about 50 metres of each other in my village. The Co-op is alot steeper in price, but you don't have to queue to buy a sandwich.
Neither uses self service tills - do any other ALDIs ?
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
That's ridiculous.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
God, it's exciting.
It's the prospect of Brexit domino effect that's tickling my fancy - I'm feeling full of revolutionary zeal
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
That's ridiculous.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
The plot thickens. This was done by Saatchi Saatchi not M&C who are currently working for Remain. Maybe that explains why they're not worried about the collateral damage?
Yes, its a bit of a Soap Opera, isn't it - the original Saatchi & Saatchi of 80 Charlotte St (and Tory glory days) are now M&C Saatchi, while 'Saatchi & Saatchi' are a Publicis subsidiary - there you are - we can blame the French for the see-saw poster!
The plot thickens. This was done by Saatchi Saatchi not M&C who are currently working for Remain. Maybe that explains why they're not worried about the collateral damage?
Yes, its a bit of a Soap Opera, isn't it - the original Saatchi & Saatchi of 80 Charlotte St (and Tory glory days) are now M&C Saatchi, while 'Saatchi & Saatchi' are a Publicis subsidiary - there you are - we can blame the French for the see-saw poster!
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
It all goes back to the crash. It destroyed so many lives and so many livelihoods and wreaked havoc on living standards. It's that which got voters looking at extremes. Brexit would certainly be very dangerous just at a time when there are signs of fragile recovery in many parts of Europe - even Greece (where unemployment is predicted to fall) and other parts of the south. That will affect us too.
The seesaw ad is despicable, the next will have a picture of foreigners being herded onto boats at Dover.
"Your vote is worth as much as a loudmouthed racist" made sense to me as a message.
I still can't quite figure out why some LEAVErs think its targeted at them.....
Surely getting as many people to vote as possible must be a good thing - and if certain groups are under represented, then increasing their representation - however they use their vote - must also be a good thing.....
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
Blimey, if true, that would barely have kept SeanT in Crozes Hermitage.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
That's ridiculous.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
Are you serious?
If the Guardian goes online only it will be committing suicide, effectively. Because it will become just a random bunch of free stuff which you can find anywhere on the net, much of it usually done better on more specialist websites. The only link between the articles will be the word "Guardian", which will increasingly be a mystery to new young readers. And all the time the BBC will be pumping out very similar liberal left journalism, online, also for free, with vastly greater resources, a much better brand, and a crucial synergy with TV and radio.
I think the Guardian is probably doomed anyway. But closing the print works will just accelerate it. They could try going behind a paywall first. That seems to sustain print sales.
The Guardian seems intent on aiming for the bottom, I agree. Let alone where they will reach if they miss.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
Are you serious?
If the Guardian goes online only it will be committing suicide, effectively. Because it will become just a random bunch of free stuff which you can find anywhere on the net, much of it usually done better on more specialist websites. The only link between the articles will be the word "Guardian", which will increasingly be a mystery to new young readers. And all the time the BBC will be pumping out very similar liberal left journalism, online, also for free, with vastly greater resources, a much better brand, and a crucial synergy with TV and radio.
I think the Guardian is probably doomed anyway. But closing the print works will just accelerate it. They could try going behind a paywall first. That seems to sustain print sales.
I don't agree. The BBC has a brand, so does the Guardian. That is the differentiation. People get their news and views online. Going behind a paywall is certainly an option. That's what we have online. But you don't need a print edition to do that.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Unless you want to get OGH (that would be you) into trouble with BMW's lawyers, you might want to be clear that BMW were not involved in the emissions fixing:
Germany’s top manufacturers agreed to recall 630,000 vehicles to tweak diesel engine software technology blamed for causing high pollution. Volkswagen, Opel, Audi and Mercedes diesel cars will be recalled to fix engine management systems, a German government official said.
BMW, which invested in fuel saving technologies earlier than most rivals, was not part of the recall, the official said
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Should I feel guilty about my diesel, Mike
Fairly certain when I bought it I was "Saving the planet" (And a few quid too)
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
Are you serious?
If the Guardian goes online only it will be committing suicide, effectively. Because it will become just a random bunch of free stuff which you can find anywhere on the net, much of it usually done better on more specialist websites. The only link between the articles will be the word "Guardian", which will increasingly be a mystery to new young readers. And all the time the BBC will be pumping out very similar liberal left journalism, online, also for free, with vastly greater resources, a much better brand, and a crucial synergy with TV and radio.
I think the Guardian is probably doomed anyway. But closing the print works will just accelerate it. They could try going behind a paywall first. That seems to sustain print sales.
I don't agree. The BBC has a brand, so does the Guardian. That is the differentiation. People get their news and views online. Going behind a paywall is certainly an option. That's what we have online. But you don't need a print edition to do that.
You don't understand how journalism works, nor the media in general, especially in the Internet era. But then, you're not a journalist so fair enough.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Unless you want to get OGH (that would be you) into trouble with BMW's lawyers, you might want to be clear that BMW were not involved in the emissions fixing:
Germany’s top manufacturers agreed to recall 630,000 vehicles to tweak diesel engine software technology blamed for causing high pollution. Volkswagen, Opel, Audi and Mercedes diesel cars will be recalled to fix engine management systems, a German government official said.
BMW, which invested in fuel saving technologies earlier than most rivals, was not part of the recall, the official said
Of course. BMWs not involved in the emissions cheat scandal but they sell a helluva lot of diesel cars which are killers. Labour thought diesel cars were an answer to global warming and did best to encourage them. How many people have died as a result?
I'm no fan of the seesaw ad, but aren't those carping about the physics missing the actual point of the ad? Their votes have the same weight..
I don't think anyone missed that. The question was one of taste.
Well obviously. Which was why I specifically referred to those carping about the physics. Not those complaining about its tastelessness.
I read this at the top of the thread, "The man obviously weights more than the woman. How could the seesaw be in balance?
Advertisers clearly don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics.", and other similar comments yesterday.
I have the luxury of being able to come over as a total Engineering wonk when I feel like it, and then switching seamlessly into PPE wonk mode. The joy of a referendum is that, for once, all votes DO have the same weight.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections high up at the Guardian. He's great for insider gossip. He told me the other day that Alan Rusbridger is now loathed by most Guardian workers. Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
The seesaw ad is despicable, the next will have a picture of foreigners being herded onto boats at Dover.
"Your vote is worth as much as a loudmouthed racist" made sense to me as a message.
I still can't quite figure out why some LEAVErs think its targeted at them.....
Surely getting as many people to vote as possible must be a good thing - and if certain groups are under represented, then increasing their representation - however they use their vote - must also be a good thing.....
I agree. My only complaint would be the stereotyping (little Indian lady and big white thug) but anything that gets people to vote - particularly if it is from groups that do not traditionally have a high turnout - is a good thing.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections high up at the Guardian. He's great for insider gossip. He told me the other day that Alan Rusbridger is now loathed by most Guardian workers. Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Unless you want to get OGH (that would be you) into trouble with BMW's lawyers, you might want to be clear that BMW were not involved in the emissions fixing:
Germany’s top manufacturers agreed to recall 630,000 vehicles to tweak diesel engine software technology blamed for causing high pollution. Volkswagen, Opel, Audi and Mercedes diesel cars will be recalled to fix engine management systems, a German government official said.
BMW, which invested in fuel saving technologies earlier than most rivals, was not part of the recall, the official said
Of course. BMWs not involved in the emissions cheat scandal but they sell a helluva lot of diesel cars which are killers. Labour thought diesel cars were an answer to global warming and did best to encourage them. How many people have died as a result?
The seesaw ad is despicable, the next will have a picture of foreigners being herded onto boats at Dover.
"Your vote is worth as much as a loudmouthed racist" made sense to me as a message.
I still can't quite figure out why some LEAVErs think its targeted at them.....
Surely getting as many people to vote as possible must be a good thing - and if certain groups are under represented, then increasing their representation - however they use their vote - must also be a good thing.....
I agree. My only complaint would be the stereotyping (little Indian lady and big white thug) but anything that gets people to vote - particularly if it is from groups that do not traditionally have a high turnout - is a good thing.
So it is trying to encourage young, white, working class men to vote? Got it now!
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
I responded slightly precipitously there. I was meaning the EU army rather than the bananas (which I did know wasn't the urban myth it's sometimes taken for - though is now a very dated example).
Sorry. It was specifically the banana non myth I had referenced. As Topping said you can't have facts about something that hasn't happened yet (outside of Feynman's diagrams)
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
Yep. The pay was pitiful for most bloggers but then most of us did it for fun, and because it gave us a pulpit. It cost the Telegraph virtually nothing and drew tens of thousands of readers. It was growing fast, and becoming one of the most read websites in the country.
Then they got in some New York liberal idiot who didn't like the politics, so he fucked it all up, sacked most people, destroyed the blog page, duly lost all those readers, then got sacked himself for his incompetence, but by then it was too late to save the journalistic ecosystem (or someone at the top couldn't be bothered) and now it's all gone and the Telegraph is significantly less successful.
It would make a good half hour documentary on How Not To Run A Paper.
The Telegraph has become a bloody awful newspaper that is for sure.
Most of the good journalists and interesting writers have been sacked. Many of the news stories appear to be badly written attempts to disguise the fact that they are really just reworked press releases. As for the new web-site whoever thought fixating on the time the article was released needs their head examined and the "Live" blog-style reporting of major stories actually makes it harder to find out what has gone on. Oh, and the headlines frequently say something different, often diametrically opposite to the content of the article below them.
The Telegraph does however have two excellent features - it's crossword (to which Herself is addicted and has been for fifty-odd years) and Matt. If it wasn't for the former I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
Yes, I read it too. It's very strong. But unlike Casino I do not think the 23rd June is effectively our last chance. If things progress in the way he feels they will, then there will be another referendum and the UK will leave the EU. But for me it is still an "if", while I also see real benefits in still being part of the club. Throw in the assorted members or the right wing establishment pushing for a leave and all that makes me Remain. This time.
There are serious worries about the spread of the far right in Europe at the moment. Austria being a case in point. An overriding consideration for me is whether Brexit would make this more or less likely. Effectively giving the English Nationalists a victory in this referendum is the last thing we should be doing as it would encourage even more dangerous nationalist movements elsewhere. So I agree. Save the petty considerations about who decides the size of bananas until a more appropriate time.
That's ridiculous.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
God, it's exciting.
It's the prospect of Brexit domino effect that's tickling my fancy - I'm feeling full of revolutionary zeal
Conservatives are evolutionists not revolutionaries!
Its just like the straight bananas and the European army, its all talk and no chance of it happening. its just scaremongering.
Not scaremongering just facts that you find inconvenient.
Could you reference the 'fact', please?
Squareroot rather stupidly referenced straight bananas as scaremongering.
EC Regulation 2257/94 was responsible for this. And before anyone claims it didn't ban anything it is worth pointing out that when it was eventually replaced by another regulation the reasoning provided in the EU press release was:
In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them."
I responded slightly precipitously there. I was meaning the EU army rather than the bananas (which I did know wasn't the urban myth it's sometimes taken for - though is now a very dated example).
Sorry. It was specifically the banana non myth I had referenced. As Topping said you can't have facts about something that hasn't happened yet (outside of Feynman's diagrams)
No worries - your comment was perfectly fair and it was me who jumped in too quickly.
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
snip
It would make a good half hour documentary on How Not To Run A Paper.
The Telegraph has become a bloody awful newspaper that is for sure.
Most of the good journalists and interesting writers have been sacked. Many of the news stories appear to be badly written attempts to disguise the fact that they are really just reworked press releases. As for the new web-site whoever thought fixating on the time the article was released needs their head examined and the "Live" blog-style reporting of major stories actually makes it harder to find out what has gone on. Oh, and the headlines frequently say something different, often diametrically opposite to the content of the article below them.
The Telegraph does however have two excellent features - it's crossword (to which Herself is addicted and has been for fifty-odd years) and Matt. If it wasn't for the former I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
It really has gone downhill in the last few months. Not renewing the excellent Mary Riddell's contract was one sign. I subscribe to the digital edition which has become a joke - seems hardly any of the articles from the actual newspaper are on there, or if they are they are hidden from view by, as you say, all the live blogging and chronological news headlines and endless sponsored clickbait.
The newspaper industry is in a truly dire situation.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections high up at the Guardian. He's great for insider gossip. He told me the other day that Alan Rusbridger is now loathed by most Guardian workers. Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
Which is itself indicative of a business that does not understand its changing market - or at the very least, which has failed to communicate that change and its strategy to adapt, to its staff.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
Pff. It's much much worse than that, at Guardian towers. There have been actual FIGHTS. It's hilarious in a macabre way.
The big division is not at the top, it's between the well paid editors and a few columnists - and absolutely everyone else. The atmos is venomous
One thing Rusbridger does get right in that staggers article is the importance of Facebook. Along with Google they are devouring all the advertising. While paying virtually no tax, of course.
The power of these online megacorps frightens me. They need reining in and they need to be taxed til they squeal.
The power they have is huge and cannot be tackled on a country by country basis. If you want their tax money, you need countries to work together. The EU could achieve a lot in this area. For what it's worth, they are also completely bolloxing up the patent and copyright systems, again to the huge detriment of smaller operators. We all lose out in the end from this as megacorps have done their innovating and are mainly interested in owning market share. They hate agile, new competitors. The best way to stop them is by appropriating their content and innovations.
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections high up at the Guardian. He's great for insider gossip. He told me the other day that Alan Rusbridger is now loathed by most Guardian workers. Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
Pff. It's much much worse than that, at Guardian towers. There have been actual FIGHTS. It's hilarious in a macabre way.
The big division is not at the top, it's between the well paid editors and a few columnists - and absolutely everyone else. The atmos is venomous
One thing Rusbridger does get right in that staggers article is the importance of Facebook. Along with Google they are devouring all the advertising. While paying virtually no tax, of course.
The power of these online megacorps frightens me. They need reining in and they need to be taxed til they squeal.
Milne's secondment is a disgrace. And I say that as fully fledged Guardian reader.
Cameron speech in Japan on sky pushing the in vote. Is this covered by Purdah? Or perhaps not?
Predicted.
I have now read, twice, the superb blogpost by Casino Royale, which really does articulate well all the arguments in the EU debate in a clear, balanced and plausible way, and congratulations to him for that. The first thing I have read in this process which really does "set it all out".
It's hard to read it and come away thinking "yep, i'll vote Remain - more of the same please", you'd really have to be the most committed Europhile to vote Remain.
And yet.... - I think back to Diane "We Just Don't Know" James and Liam Fox frothing away last night, next to the far more measured, reasonable and normal Johnson and Salmond. No doubt in my mind last night which pairing I felt most empathy towards.
I'm still torn, everything Casino says resonates with me and I'm with him 99% of the way. But can I say I'll walk into the polling booth on the 23rd and vote Leave. I'm not sure.
I have shared it on Facebook and it's been well received by a handful of my friends already.
It's a compelling piece.
But, as per @SouthamObserver's point, it assumes that this is our last chance. It is not. Leavers set aside a particular flavour of vitriol whenever it is pointed out that we can have another referendum in future (or indeed vote in a party whose manifesto pledge is to leave the EU).
I think the problem is more that they fear a future govt will agree to ever closer union; their concern is not so much the EU's move to a superstate, as our own government's acquiescence in that move.
Many of them can't reconcile the concepts of "future craven UK govt" and "democratically-elected future craven UK govt".
Although out of the EU a "democratically-elected future craven UK government" will find it much harder to merge the UK into a supranational body: they would need (by precedent at least) ask the people's permission.
If permission has been given - even if it is believed to only be permission for the status quo - then it can, and will, be abused by "future craven UK governments"
It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections high up at the Guardian. He's great for insider gossip. He told me the other day that Alan Rusbridger is now loathed by most Guardian workers. Real visceral hatred. Fisticuffs in the elevator stuff.
He's seen as the guy that destroyed the paper. Very distant from the story they tell the public, that Rusbridger was this Pulitzer Prize winning hero editor.
Pff. It's much much worse than that, at Guardian towers. There have been actual FIGHTS. It's hilarious in a macabre way.
The big division is not at the top, it's between the well paid editors and a few columnists - and absolutely everyone else. The atmos is venomous
One thing Rusbridger does get right in that staggers article is the importance of Facebook. Along with Google they are devouring all the advertising. While paying virtually no tax, of course.
The power of these online megacorps frightens me. They need reining in and they need to be taxed til they squeal.
Chuckling at the thought of Guardianistas fighting, did they throw their tofu at each other.
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
snip
It would make a good half hour documentary on How Not To Run A Paper.
The Telegraph has become a bloody awful newspaper that is for sure.
Most of the good journalists and interesting writers have been sacked. Many of the news stories appear to be badly written attempts to disguise the fact that they are really just reworked press releases. As for the new web-site whoever thought fixating on the time the article was released needs their head examined and the "Live" blog-style reporting of major stories actually makes it harder to find out what has gone on. Oh, and the headlines frequently say something different, often diametrically opposite to the content of the article below them.
The Telegraph does however have two excellent features - it's crossword (to which Herself is addicted and has been for fifty-odd years) and Matt. If it wasn't for the former I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
It really has gone downhill in the last few months. Not renewing the excellent Mary Riddell's contract was one sign. I subscribe to the digital edition which has become a joke - seems hardly any of the articles from the actual newspaper are on there, or if they are they are hidden from view by, as you say, all the live blogging and chronological news headlines and endless sponsored clickbait.
The newspaper industry is in a truly dire situation.
Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course.
Comments
State aid rules can slow down responding to situations, whether that's the early stage of a banking crisis or steel firms. The EU wants to regulate financial affairs which will harm us as our financial sector outweighs that of any other EU nation (maybe all others combined). The EU's desire for corporation tax harmonisation will make it more difficult to encourage business investment.
That's just off the top of my head.
Now, why don't you give me five (if you think that's a reasonable number) or three (the number I came up with during a short writing break) an EU army, QMV, and EU tax harmonisation is in our national interest?
External debts - i.e. money owed by the UK to people outside the UK - are horrendous. It used to be a sensible rule of thumb that external liabilities could not pass 120% of GDP without a "correction". We're now close to 180%. Nowhere else in the world comes close. That makes us incredibly vulnerable whenever the wind turns.
And, despite this being the fifth (or so) year of economic expansion, we're still running a large budget deficit (also pretty much the largest in the developed world).
Apparently 40% of BMA members wanted to hunt down and if a doctor, try to get the whistleblower struck off.
They're a union FFS. It's appalling.
Isn't Operation Blackvote independent of Remain/Leave and trying to boost registration and turnout? Hence a different advertising agency.
The first objective of advertising is to get noticed and get people talking. This poster seems to have achieved that!
Unlike that shockingly poor and inept performance by Liam Fox and Diane James last night.
The advantages of Euro-competition in the single market for British consumers....
https://twitter.com/JamesPiotr/status/736114675742605312
https://twitter.com/End_of_Europe/status/735885887184248833
As I've said, the EU army won't replace national armies. What I imagine they'll do is have it run alongside, slowly shifting resources from national armies to Euroland's army.
A new tax (Tobin, for example) they might argue to be collected directly by Brussels.
Indeed the EU has made bananas cheaper. Until the eighties we had preferential imports to more expensive Carribean bananas from Commonwealth countries, and the French used similar arrangements. When Maggie passed the single market through parliament these arrangements became obsolete, and we now buy cheaper "dollar" bananas on the world market.
I am strangely knowledgeable about British Banana Policy as I used to flatshare with a civil servant who worked on the issues.
It will be repeated back at them every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6aVsps10I
https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff/commodities/0803101000
Goods are subject to VAT zero rate.
Although there is no tariff on importing bananas from Iceland - very important that!
You've also ignored the desire of Brussels to regulate our financial sector and harmonise corporation tax. Do those things not concern you?
In any case, I don't see how an EU army could run alongside national armies - who commands it, recruits to it, deploys it and so on? What policy is it designed to enforce? It is certainly possible that there might be a proposal for some NATO-equivalent joint structure but that would still be national co-operation rather than a genuinely independent armed service.
"For just 16p a day you can support the Guardian's independence and award winning journalism"
Not to mention helping to keep the likes of Polly Toynbee in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
Preventing State Aid is a basic tenant of a free market economy. I would imagine the Blessed Thatcher would have been pushing for rules against government interference at any EU meetings she was at. It simply means that UK producers aren't disadvantaged in the single market.
Also the Banking Crisis (and it looks like the failure of Tata Steel) were resolved without the EU state aid regs causing a problem.
Depressing that the EU debate seems to be turning people back to protectionism.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Mr. D, as an emergency measure, for particular sector, state aid is sometimes (unfortunately) required. When it is, it should happen without needing a rubber stamp from Brussels.
Tescos 260,000 staff - £63bn turnover (£242k per employee)
Lidl UK 10,000 staff - £4bn turnover (£400k per employee)
On a smaller scale, it's also crackers the Chancellor has to beg Brussels for permission not to put VAT on tampons. It hardly speaks of self-confident sovereignty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't decide what should and should not have a sales tax applied to it.
It's the total failure of centrist politicians in European states to respond to legitimate concerns of their voters that has, in no small part, led to the election (or near election) of more radical parties.
Particularly since many EU states now cannot effectively control their economic or migration policy.
The EU is undermining European solidarity and democracy, not strengthening it.
We can change that by Leaving and showing a different way.
God, it's exciting.
The inevitable result will be cost-cutting on an even greater scale than has been apparent for the past decade.
That's the remark of someone intent on following his perception of his industry down the plughole?
Rather than understand and invest in the replacement market, the 'strategy' - such as it is - is to go further and further downmarket. It is, to reference a different discussion, to play Morecambe rather than Cornwall to tourists.
Doesn't specify what the Guardian's print advertising is. I suspect less.
Neither uses self service tills - do any other ALDIs ?
That'd be nice for convienience !
Order is restored in the universe!
I'll get me coat.
I read this at the top of the thread, "The man obviously weights more than the woman. How could the seesaw be in balance?
Advertisers clearly don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of physics.", and other similar comments yesterday.
Power to the Peepel !!!!
Surely getting as many people to vote as possible must be a good thing - and if certain groups are under represented, then increasing their representation - however they use their vote - must also be a good thing.....
Or is this boomtime in Greece in your twisted imagination?
"The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
Germany’s top manufacturers agreed to recall 630,000 vehicles to tweak diesel engine software technology blamed for causing high pollution. Volkswagen, Opel, Audi and Mercedes diesel cars will be recalled to fix engine management systems, a German government official said.
BMW, which invested in fuel saving technologies earlier than most rivals, was not part of the recall, the official said
http://www.bmwblog.com/2016/04/22/german-automakers-recall-630000-cars-fix-emissions-bmw-clear/
Fairly certain when I bought it I was "Saving the planet" (And a few quid too)
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/fueding-and-financial-meltdown-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-guardian-s-giant-bustup-a3249961.html
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-27/vote-leave-launch-50m-competition-but-you-have-to-predict-every-european-championship-result/
Most of the good journalists and interesting writers have been sacked. Many of the news stories appear to be badly written attempts to disguise the fact that they are really just reworked press releases. As for the new web-site whoever thought fixating on the time the article was released needs their head examined and the "Live" blog-style reporting of major stories actually makes it harder to find out what has gone on. Oh, and the headlines frequently say something different, often diametrically opposite to the content of the article below them.
The Telegraph does however have two excellent features - it's crossword (to which Herself is addicted and has been for fifty-odd years) and Matt. If it wasn't for the former I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
Clever idea.
The newspaper industry is in a truly dire situation.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mcdonnell-broke-rules-on-hard-left-adviser-s-pay-clhgrv9fx
If permission has been given - even if it is believed to only be permission for the status quo - then it can, and will, be abused by "future craven UK governments"