p There was never a doubt that ever closer union has been at the heart of the EU for years. And endorsed by us (by our democratically-elected governments, Maastricht, Lisbon).
And hence the importance in Dave's "crap deal" of our specific opt out of...ever closer union. Under that banner we could have opted out of any number of initiatives over and above those we would regardless have rejected (EU army, etc). And if we thought we were still getting bulldozed we could have elected a party to ensure we bloody well did opt out of them.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
But Dave's doc is arguably one of the most misunderstood pieces of negotation we have seen. Immigration aside, where it was an abject failure.
It had no legal force and as soon as we had tried to use it we would have lost at the ECJ.
Fortunately, the voters grasped that.
And once that had happened, Boudicca would have ridden down Bromley High Street on Joey dispensing guineas to all EU citizens. Right?
It's a beautiful thread header. If it's poetry then Brirain's actual relationship with Europe over 43 years has been in prose version. Negotiated semi detachment while doing quite a bit of heavy lifting. Now that the arsonists have set fire to building hoping for a Pheonix seems a trifle optermistc.
I may come up with a new medical term: Brexichosis.
Brexichosis: the psychosis-like changing of a previously respected, and level-headed, poster in response to the Brexit vote into a hyperbolic obsessive, who sees armageddon in every story, because their thoughts and emotions have become so impaired contact has been lost with reality.
You mean you don't agree agree with me.
No, you have been posting ludicrous hyperbole over recent weeks on here virtually non-stop.
You are starting to look obsessive and unhinged, and it's not just me who's noticed.
Not good enough. Brexiters are the establishment now. It's your responsibility. All the complexity, all the contradictions, all the compromises, all the shades of grey, all the broken promises, all the myriad variables and the fact none of us really know what will happen. These things are all yours now. You own them all and a bit of Ad Hominem bluster won't suffice. You won. You own it.
Unlike you, I'm very relaxed about it and think we have a great future.
So I'm sorry if I can't get quite as animated as you do about it.
As a concise summary of why Trump is unfit to be President it works well. Perhaps best summed up with his plan to replace Obamacare with "something terrific". Well who could fault that? Health care sorted in two words.
There's little dispute that Trump is unfit to be President. The problem is that Clinton is too.
If either party had chosen absolutely anyone else, they'd be looking at a landslide now.
The debriefing in both parties after this election will be extensive. The losing party will be quicker to understand this than the winner, and will be better placed to field a group of good candidates in 2020.
The one thing that's almost certain is that this will be a one term presidency.
No, if Trump loses the GOP will pick Cruz in 2020 as Trump was too socially liberal. If Clinton loses the Democrats will pick Sanders or Warren as she was too centrist and too much of a hawk
Britain doesn't know what it wants for Europe and from Europe, that is achievable. It never has done since the Second World War. Which is why Brexit is doomed to failure. It won't resolve anything.
The real shit in this referendum has been Cameron. He sets up a vote and makes no preparation whatever for a No vote. Worse than that, he must have stopped the Civil Service from making contingency plans - they would have done that automatically otherwise. So we have an hiatus of six months or so while the CS scramble round looking at options.
Cameron's view .... vote my way, I know best.
That's the reason I voted Leave. I was lied to in 1975, deliberately lied to, even though some politicians will claim it was a lie of omission. They can treat me as an idiot, but I never forget being considered gullible. Cameron is a "good" politician but hubris did for him in the end. He never considered defeat.
That's a forceful editorial and pretty well says it all. Unfortunately its logic may not reach those souls who are Trumpeters.
It doesn't need to reach people who think Obama is a foreign born Muslim ( incidentally that figure has fallen since Trump recanted) it needs to reach undecideds.
Actually having some reasons to vote for Clinton would be a start. "She's not Donald Trump" and "she's a woman" might be enough to win but I can't see a victory on those grounds leading to a happy presidency.
Yeah, I bet the GOP are kicking themselves. Any sensible candidate would be demolishing Clinton (well, maybe not demolishing, but you get the idea!)
On topic, a very well-argued piece from Cyclefree. However, the crunch comes in the paragraph as to why it won't happen, all of which is accurate.
Cameron laid out a blueprint for Europe in his Bloomberg Speech. it was an excellent piece of analysis and soloutioning. It was entirely ignored, both by him and by his colleagues during the negotiations leading to the referendum. Why? Timidity, partly, on Cameron's part but much more so, a refusal to countenance by the other members and the EU institutions the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to achieve it. If Britain could not even nudge the EU in that direction as a member, what chance of us doing so as we depart, when so many Europeans still see the UK's decision as wrong, irrational and to be punished?
Britain leaving is a disaster for the EU and for Europe, because it significantly increases the chances of the EU itself collapsing in an uncontrolled and acrimonious way, enabling others with nefarious designs to take advantage. Cameron's vision fell flat when up against the intransigence and arrogance of the EU elite (and, perhaps, their fatigue of having to handle all the problems the continent's had since 2008, irrespective of who was to blame for them).
But be that as it may, there's nothing we can realistically do about it now. I disagree with Cyclefree's assertion that setting out an alternative for Europe can form a meaningful part of the withdrawal process. most likely, the rEU will see it as some form of attack on their conceptual basis (rightly), and will react even more defensively.
Certainly, the government needs to set out its broad outline of how it sees the framework of the EU-UK relationship. For example, do we want membership of the Single Market or not? That's a fundamental question, the answer to which either way closes off all sorts of options available to the alternative answer. But beyond that, the government should concentrate on the nuts and bolts of withdrawal and terms of trade.
It would be great if it could be as Cyclefree suggests. But this is not a divorce - there is no judge to fall back on if no agreement can be reached. What's more we have the Three Amigos and other cabinet deadweights on our side, with Hammond and maybe May the only realists in the room. It does not look that much better on the EU side. I suspect events will force the hands of both sides.
Germany's banks collapse to-morrow, its democracy may just about last into the New Year.
Britain doesn't know what it wants for Europe and from Europe, that is achievable. It never has done since the Second World War. Which is why Brexit is doomed to failure. It won't resolve anything.
As Sir Humphrey said Britain wants a divided Europe not a united one
That's a forceful editorial and pretty well says it all. Unfortunately its logic may not reach those souls who are Trumpeters.
It doesn't need to reach people who think Obama is a foreign born Muslim ( incidentally that figure has fallen since Trump recanted) it needs to reach undecideds.
Actually having some reasons to vote for Clinton would be a start. "She's not Donald Trump" and "she's a woman" might be enough to win but I can't see a victory on those grounds leading to a happy presidency.
Yeah, I bet the GOP are kicking themselves. Any sensible candidate would be demolishing Clinton (well, maybe not demolishing, but you get the idea!)
The GOP are now in the grip of ideologues just like Labour
“In my view, Donald Trump may be the least qualified, least intelligent and least stable person ever nominated by a major party,” said Jim Cicconi, a deputy chief of staff under former president George H.W. Bush.
Yes the Bush Snr crowd are all for Hillary or Johnson
It would be great if it could be as Cyclefree suggests. But this is not a divorce - there is no judge to fall back on if no agreement can be reached. What's more we have the Three Amigos and other cabinet deadweights on our side, with Hammond and maybe May the only realists in the room. It does not look that much better on the EU side. I suspect events will force the hands of both sides.
Germany's banks collapse to-morrow, its democracy may just about last into the New Year.
Nah. Brexiteers haven't even got a coherent vision for Britain, let alone Europe.
Britain has no vision for Europe. It had one at one point when Maggie whipped through the single market reforms, before her regret in doing so.
Faisal Islam posted some information last night from the Thatcher archives about her encouraging Nissan to invest in the UK based on our membership of the single market.
And the Brexiteers on Twitter went mental
Islam is to Remain what Neil is to Leave.
What I found particularly interesting about the Nissan story isn't that they said they'd up sticks and leave if there was a hard Brexit, because they didn't, it was that they expected the UK Government to compensate in other ways.
That could include corporation tax cuts, or more flexible employment law, some deregulation or investment incentives.
As always, there are both costs and benefits to leaving the EU.
I dearly hope Nissan stays in the UK - i was born in Sunderland and now drive a Juke here in Spain and transported from Sunderland. However, if they do go no-one can say the 'experts' didn't warn the 'mackems' it might happen.
On topic I hate to be cynical but it seems a bit optimistic to hope that the country whose main idea for the last 20 years has been for all 28 countries to have a veto over everything, and that just decided to leave without the faintest idea of what it wants instead, is suddenly, having left, going to come up with "an intellectual Marshall plan for Europe".
It's a beautiful thread header. If it's poetry then Brirain's actual relationship with Europe over 43 years has been in prose version. Negotiated semi detachment while doing quite a bit of heavy lifting. Now that the arsonists have set fire to building hoping for a Pheonix seems a trifle optermistc.
I may come up with a new medical term: Brexichosis.
Brexichosis: the psychosis-like changing of a previously respected, and level-headed, poster in response to the Brexit vote into a hyperbolic obsessive, who sees armageddon in every story, because their thoughts and emotions have become so impaired contact has been lost with reality.
You mean you don't agree agree with me.
No, you have been posting ludicrous hyperbole over recent weeks on here virtually non-stop.
You are starting to look obsessive and unhinged, and it's not just me who's noticed.
Not good enough. Brexiters are the establishment now. It's your responsibility. All the complexity, all the contradictions, all the compromises, all the shades of grey, all the broken promises, all the myriad variables and the fact none of us really know what will happen. These things are all yours now. You own them all and a bit of Ad Hominem bluster won't suffice. You won. You own it.
Utterly wrong, I am afraid. The outgoing Remainer Prime Minister has handed over to an incoming, Remainer Prime Minister. No party with more than one MP campaigned for brexit. The country, not any party or individual, "owns" brexit. You may if you wish castigate yourself as a useless twat because you "own" the loss of the referendum (I am not saying that you should, or that you would be right to do so; but if remain was so obviously the right answer then it argues a certain degree of incompetence on the part of its supporters that it lost), but there is no point sitting there like a monkey hurling its own faeces at the "brexiteers" (of whom I am not one, before you start on me).
To show we are internationalists, the first things we should to are to say we will impose no tariffs on EU trade and continue to offer EU citizens visa-free travel.
On topic, a very well-argued piece from Cyclefree. However, the crunch comes in the paragraph as to why it won't happen, all of which is accurate.
Cameron laid out a blueprint for Europe in his Bloomberg Speech. it was an excellent piece of analysis and soloutioning. It was entirely ignored, both by him and by his colleagues during the negotiations leading to the referendum. Why? Timidity, partly, on Cameron's part but much more so, a refusal to countenance by the other members and the EU institutions the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to achieve it. If Britain could not even nudge the EU in that direction as a member, what chance of us doing so as we depart, when so many Europeans still see the UK's decision as wrong, irrational and to be punished?
Britain leaving is a disaster for the EU and for Europe, because it significantly increases the chances of the EU itself collapsing in an uncontrolled and acrimonious way, enabling others with nefarious designs to take advantage. Cameron's vision fell flat when up against the intransigence and
But be that as it may, there's nothing we can realistically do about it now. I disagree with Cyclefree's assertion that setting out an alternative for Europe can form a meaningful part of the withdrawal process. most likely, the rEU will see it as some form of attack on their conceptual basis (rightly), and will react even more defensively.
Certainly, the government needs to set out its broad outline of how it sees the framework of the EU-UK relationship. For example, do we want membership of the Single Market or not? That's a fundamental question, the answer to which either way closes off all sorts of options available to the alternative answer. But beyond that, the government should concentrate on the nuts and bolts of withdrawal and terms of trade.
Cameron's Bloomberg blueprint was excellent although still wouldn't have pleased hard core outers. It never would have happened in one negotiating session, however I think it would have had a chance if the UK government had consistently pursued it over a decade and been able to back it up with a stable UK that was outperforming the rest of the EU.
Anyway, that's all in the past and there is no chance of any grand plan given current moods across the EU. Best to aim for hard Brexit with some free trade and to go turbo capitalist in the UK. Some sort of political realignment would also be handy so we could have a sensible opposition and a coherent government.
Britain doesn't know what it wants for Europe and from Europe, that is achievable. It never has done since the Second World War. Which is why Brexit is doomed to failure. It won't resolve anything.
As Sir Humphrey said Britain wants a divided Europe not a united one
Curiously Brexit has somewhat united Europe while dividing Britain
I just remembered, this is the one weekend every couple of years where I describe myself as a proud European. No, I'm not acting at being Nick Clegg or Ken Clarke, it's the Ryder Cup starting this afternoon! http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/37361631
Italy's economy minister urged a quick answer to the problems of Germany's biggest lender Deutsche Bank in a newspaper interview on Friday, adding it was in everyone's interest "to look for solutions that must then be carefully handled."
"Just like the problem of bad bank loans must be solved within a reasonable time frame, so it should be for Deutsche Bank's problems," Pier Carlo Padoan told Italian daily La Stampa.
I can imagine there is a serious amount of schadenfreude in the halls of the Italian finance ministry today.
To declare bias, I like Cyclefree - had the pleasure of meeting for a few seconds, and it bore out the impression on the forum: vigotous, charismatic and bright. So I really want to like her pieces. And if Cameron has proposed something like this a few years ago, he'd have had an interested audience.
But. Two snags about this one.
First, it doesn't actually suggest what we might propose, so it's hard to get a feeling for whether it's possible to develop a vision that most of us would find attractive: the temptation is to project whatever we'd personally like (e.g. Jeremy would say, "Yes, Cyclefree is right, we should have a Europe that reinforces compulsory social protection and controls on multinationals"). We can all agree that a positive arrangement would be nice, but the devil really is in the detail, or at least the chapter headings.
Second, the EU is really not in the mood to listen to bright ideas from Britain on what they should be like. The analogy to a divorce is the spouse who has lived in a period of mingle amity and irritation with a difficult partner for many years. The partner has said they're going to walk out. That's a shame, but oh well. But what's this - the partner has a detailed plan for what I should do after they leave? FFS. If you're going, let's sort out who gets what and then just... go.
Nick: I found this quite hard to write in part because of the first reason you identify. What do we want? And even if I were to put something down, would anyone other than me and mine (and possibly not even them) agree with it. It may surprise you but I do have some sympathy with left-wing criticisms of the EU. It seems to me that the human element is often missing from their world view. I may try to put some ideas down. But I am not a politician, a mere amateur, and I have plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. Why is this stuff not being done by the clever clogs in politics?
For instance, the concepts of free movement, of asylum, migration etc need to be rethought for the world we are in now. They are not being rethought. On one side "free movement" is repeatedly chanted at ever higher volume like a child reciting the Catechism without really understanding it. And on the other there is a retreat to a wish for a world where people do not move readily and control is more manageable. This cannot go on. Someone needs to start the hard work of rethinking this. Why not us?
Re your second point: I can see the force of what you say. But Europe has not listened to us either and if it had we would not be where we are. This is not about telling them how to live their lives. But we need to have a good relationship with them afterwards. Worth debating surely?
On topic, a very well-argued piece from Cyclefree. However, the crunch comes in the paragraph as to why it won't happen, all of which is accurate.
Cameron laid out a blueprint for Europe in his Bloomberg Speech. it was an excellent piece of analysis and soloutioning. It was entirely ignored, both by him and by his colleagues during the negotiations leading to the referendum. Why? Timidity, partly, on Cameron's part but much more so, a refusal to countenance by the other members and the EU institutions the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to achieve it. If Britain could not even nudge the EU in that direction as a member, what chance of us doing so as we depart, when so many Europeans still see the UK's decision as wrong, irrational and to be punished?
Britain leaving is a disaster for the EU and for Europe, because it significantly increases the chances of the EU itself collapsing in an uncontrolled and acrimonious way, enabling others with nefarious designs to take advantage. Cameron's vision fell flat when up against the intransigence and
But be that as it may, there's nothing we can realistically do about it now. I disagree with Cyclefree's assertion that setting out an alternative for Europe can form a meaningful part of the withdrawal process. most likely, the rEU will see it as some form of attack on their conceptual basis (rightly), and will react even more defensively.
Certainly, the government needs to set out its broad outline of how it sees the framework of the EU-UK relationship. For example, do we want membership of the Single Market or not? That's a fundamental question, the answer to which either way closes off all sorts of options available to the alternative answer. But beyond that, the government should concentrate on the nuts and bolts of withdrawal and terms of trade.
Cameron's Bloomberg blueprint was excellent although still wouldn't have pleased hard core outers. It never would have happened in one negotiating session, however I think it would have had a chance if the UK government had consistently pursued it over a decade and been able to back it up with a stable UK that was outperforming the rest of the EU.
Anyway, that's all in the past and there is no chance of any grand plan given current moods across the EU. Best to aim for hard Brexit with some free trade and to go turbo capitalist in the UK. Some sort of political realignment would also be handy so we could have a sensible opposition and a coherent government.
A successful response to Bloomberg and an emergency break on migration would have clearly won the referendum for Cameron by at least 60/40 and settled our EU membership for 30 years.
Either DB is now an amazing investment opportunity or they are going to look for capital raising measures.
Do you know how much the fine will be?
If you look at the amount of RMBS DB issued, and compare it to the amount issued by the big US banks, then the fine should be in the range of $3-4bn.
Alternatively, if the is in the $10 to $20bn range, which I have heard (although it's all rumours, so please don't put any credence on it), then I would have thought they will need to raise capital asap.
The sell off, one would think, is probably therefore people shorting the stock, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to buy it back at a discount price when there's a rights issue.
On topic, a very well-argued piece from Cyclefree. However, the crunch comes in the paragraph as to why it won't happen, all of which is accurate.
Cameron laid out a blueprint for Europe in his Bloomberg Speech. it was an excellent piece of analysis and soloutioning. It was entirely ignored, both by him and by his colleagues during the negotiations leading to the referendum. Why? Timidity, partly, on Cameron's part but much more so, a refusal to countenance by the other members and the EU institutions the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to achieve it. If Britain could not even nudge the EU in that direction as a member, what chance of us doing so as we depart, when so many Europeans still see the UK's decision as wrong, irrational and to be punished?
Britain leaving is a disaster for the EU and for Europe, because it significantly increases the chances of the EU itself collapsing in an uncontrolled and acrimonious way, enabling others with nefarious designs to take advantage. Cameron's vision fell flat when up against the intransigence and
But be that as it may, there's nothing we can realistically do about it now. I disagree with Cyclefree's assertion that setting out an alternative for Europe can form a meaningful part of the withdrawal process. most likely, the rEU will see it as some form of attack on their conceptual basis (rightly), and will react even more defensively.
Certainly, the government needs to set out its broad outline of how it sees the framework of the EU-UK relationship. For example, do we want membership of the Single Market or not? That's a fundamental question, the answer to which either way closes off all sorts of options available to the alternative answer. But beyond that, the government should concentrate on the nuts and bolts of withdrawal and terms of trade.
Cameron's Bloomberg blueprint was excellent although still wouldn't have pleased hard core outers. It never would have happened in one negotiating session, however I think it would have had a chance if the UK government had consistently pursued it over a decade and been able to back it up with a stable UK that was outperforming the rest of the EU.
Anyway, that's all in the past and there is no chance of any grand plan given current moods across the EU. [snip]
I'd agree with all that. The two years he gave himself in his manifesto commitment - never mind the six months it actually turned out to be - was far too short a time in which to win the arguments that Cameron put forward in his Bloomberg Speech. But over the course of a decade, minds could be changed. With the likelihood of some treaty change needed in that period anyway, the two could have come together. As you say though: water under the bridge.
I agree with Cyclefree. It needs a sense of vision from Mrs May.
But her inept handling of grammar schools does not bode well. Is this why she really failed at immigration and border controls even though she sat at the head of them for 6 years?
Either DB is now an amazing investment opportunity or they are going to look for capital raising measures.
Do you know how much the fine will be?
If you look at the amount of RMBS DB issued, and compare it to the amount issued by the big US banks, then the fine should be in the range of $3-4bn.
Alternatively, if the is in the $10 to $20bn range, which I have heard (although it's all rumours, so please don't put any credence on it), then I would have thought they will need to raise capital asap.
The sell off, one would think, is probably therefore people shorting the stock, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to buy it back at a discount price when there's a rights issue.
$14bn was the precise figure, though that's just an opening gambit. With the EU getting tough on Apple and other American corporations, the DoJ might not be amenable to lowering that too much.
Yes, that would be my guess also, though one wonders who will buy into the rights issue when there is a potential $14bn fine hanging over them. Any money pumped in will be lost immediately and they'll be back on the precipice with an unprofitable investment bank with huge contingent liabilities and a barely profitable retail bank struggling with low interest rates and a negative deposit rate.
Either DB is now an amazing investment opportunity or they are going to look for capital raising measures.
Do you know how much the fine will be?
If you look at the amount of RMBS DB issued, and compare it to the amount issued by the big US banks, then the fine should be in the range of $3-4bn.
Alternatively, if the is in the $10 to $20bn range, which I have heard (although it's all rumours, so please don't put any credence on it), then I would have thought they will need to raise capital asap.
The sell off, one would think, is probably therefore people shorting the stock, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to buy it back at a discount price when there's a rights issue.
$14bn was the precise figure, though that's just an opening gambit. With the EU getting tough on Apple and other American corporations, the DoJ might not be amenable to lowering that too much.
Yes, that would be my guess also, though one wonders who will buy into the rights issue when there is a potential $14bn fine hanging over them. Any money pumped in will be lost immediately and they'll be back on the precipice with an unprofitable investment bank with huge contingent liabilities and a barely profitable retail bank struggling with low interest rates and a negative deposit rate.
If this is a punitive tit for tat measure against the EU then the fine for 'our' banks *cough RBS.l* may not be so hefty, seeing as we are leaving...
So with a 76% vote for Brexit locally, and "From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section." - I'd expect three quarters of the audience to be Leavers?
Finally it looks like the decision is coming. Two decades too late, but coming at last.
Heathrow expansion is the correct decision.
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (Schipol has 6 runways and is less busy I think !)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
Yes, I'd let the free market decide, give them all permission to build an additional runway and let them raise their own money to do it. One school of thought is that if both Heathrow and Gatwick get the green light then Gatwick would be unable to raise the £6bn necessary to fund their second runway as all the private money would end up at Heathrow for refurbishing T4 and possibly building a new T1/3 to increase passenger capacity along with the new runway.
Nick: I found this quite hard to write in part because of the first reason you identify. What do we want? And even if I were to put something down, would anyone other than me and mine (and possibly not even them) agree with it. It may surprise you but I do have some sympathy with left-wing criticisms of the EU. It seems to me that the human element is often missing from their world view. I may try to put some ideas down. But I am not a politician, a mere amateur, and I have plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. Why is this stuff not being done by the clever clogs in politics?
For instance, the concepts of free movement, of asylum, migration etc need to be rethought for the world we are in now. They are not being rethought. On one side "free movement" is repeatedly chanted at ever higher volume like a child reciting the Catechism without really understanding it. And on the other there is a retreat to a wish for a world where people do not move readily and control is more manageable. This cannot go on. Someone needs to start the hard work of rethinking this. Why not us?
Re your second point: I can see the force of what you say. But Europe has not listened to us either and if it had we would not be where we are. This is not about telling them how to live their lives. But we need to have a good relationship with them afterwards. Worth debating surely?
We are not in a good place, but it's where we are. There's no point in telling "Europe" what they should have, for the reasons Nick gives. But we can start with what WE want.
First of all the Leave vote was entirely negative: no EU, no immigration, no money to the corrupt EU, no foreign courts telling us what to do. To some extent that's the nature of a Yes/No referendums. At least one of the options will be a negative one. Nevertheless the decision of the Leave campaign not to put up any alternative vision or direction was a deliberate one to keep their canvas blank.
Theresa May needs as a matter of urgency to put together a policy and to sell that policy to her MPs and the public. Policies have to be something and can't be defined in negatives. Saying "I am not going to talk about it, nor allow Parliament to have a say" isn't policy and it isn't getting buy-in
Nick: I found this quite hard to write in part because of the first reason you identify. What do we want? And even if I were to put something down, would anyone other than me and mine (and possibly not even them) agree with it. It may surprise you but I do have some sympathy with left-wing criticisms of the EU. It seems to me that the human element is often missing from their world view. I may try to put some ideas down. But I am not a politician, a mere amateur, and I have plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. Why is this stuff not being done by the clever clogs in politics?
For instance, the concepts of free movement, of asylum, migration etc need to be rethought for the world we are in now. They are not being rethought. On one side "free movement" is repeatedly chanted at ever higher volume like a child reciting the Catechism without really understanding it. And on the other there is a retreat to a wish for a world where people do not move readily and control is more manageable. This cannot go on. Someone needs to start the hard work of rethinking this. Why not us?
Re your second point: I can see the force of what you say. But Europe has not listened to us either and if it had we would not be where we are. This is not about telling them how to live their lives. But we need to have a good relationship with them afterwards. Worth debating surely?
To give credit where credit is due, the only person to begin to address the section in bold above was David Cameron.
Take refugees from camps on the borders of the country. Provide help in the region of the problem(s).
Get on top of the misery of Human Trafficers.
But they are tough questions that can not be addressed by using the regulations laid down 40 or 60 years ago which were appropriate to the world at that time. Those regulations are not fit for purpose in the mobile (both transport and communications) world of today.
Very similar to our NHS. The system was great for the world of 40 to 60 years ago, but it needs to be radically changed to fit into the expectations of the modern world. Incidentally, what is the difference between Big Sam (ex England Boss) earning an extra wodge for addressing an overseas forum in his own time and an NHS consultant earning dosh from working privately?
Finally it looks like the decision is coming. Two decades too late, but coming at last.
Heathrow expansion is the correct decision.
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (Schipol has 6 runways and is less busy I think !)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
Yes, I'd let the free market decide, give them all permission to build an additional runway and let them raise their own money to do it. One school of thought is that if both Heathrow and Gatwick get the green light then Gatwick would be unable to raise the £6bn necessary to fund their second runway as all the private money would end up at Heathrow for refurbishing T4 and possibly building a new T1/3 to increase passenger capacity along with the new runway.
Finally it looks like the decision is coming. Two decades too late, but coming at last.
Heathrow expansion is the correct decision.
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (Schipol has 6 runways and is less busy I think !)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
Agree completely about the other airports being free to expand too.
The LHR plan should be for two new runways, otherwise we will be having the same arguements again within a few years of the third one. There is provision for this in the last govt. report.
Either DB is now an amazing investment opportunity or they are going to look for capital raising measures.
Do you know how much the fine will be?
If you look at the amount of RMBS DB issued, and compare it to the amount issued by the big US banks, then the fine should be in the range of $3-4bn.
Alternatively, if the is in the $10 to $20bn range, which I have heard (although it's all rumours, so please don't put any credence on it), then I would have thought they will need to raise capital asap.
The sell off, one would think, is probably therefore people shorting the stock, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to buy it back at a discount price when there's a rights issue.
$14bn was the precise figure, though that's just an opening gambit. With the EU getting tough on Apple and other American corporations, the DoJ might not be amenable to lowering that too much.
Yes, that would be my guess also, though one wonders who will buy into the rights issue when there is a potential $14bn fine hanging over them. Any money pumped in will be lost immediately and they'll be back on the precipice with an unprofitable investment bank with huge contingent liabilities and a barely profitable retail bank struggling with low interest rates and a negative deposit rate.
If this is a punitive tit for tat measure against the EU then the fine for 'our' banks *cough RBS.l* may not be so hefty, seeing as we are leaving...
*Crosses fingers*
That's not how fines are levied. Expect hefty fines on both banks. Plus some of the stuff DB has been involved with in Russia is not going to endear them to the US.
One problem is that German regulators are some of the weakest and most feeble in Europe, one reason why I am sceptical about the claims that Frankfurt could be a realistic replacement for London as a financial services centre. DB has been described by our own regulator as "unregulatable". It is in effect bust. The CEO knows what he has to do but trying to do it against the inertia of the institution, its unwillingness to change and in the time available is all but impossible. This is one time when you need the active involvement of governmental authorities to stabilise the situation while you execute a strategy to shrink the bank.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
@rcs1000 The gov't pays far too much attention to the green loonies and NIMBYs of SW London.
Which is perverse, given that the new runways will be north of the existing airport, REDUCING the amount of aircraft traffic over the leafy bits of the A4 and A316 corridors.
Anti-Government case As a residual power, the prerogative cannot today be extended. The need to ensure executive accountability to Parliament by limiting the exercise of prerogative power, particularly in respect of important decisions affecting citizens' fundamental rights has been endorsed across the political spectrum including the Defendant himself. (David Davis)
Government case A notification under Article 50 would be an administrative act on the international law plane about which complaint cannot be made by any individual claimant in the domestic courts.
The Government may well lose the case and it will then go to appeal which it may also lose.
I think it is becoming increasingly likely that Theresa May will call a General Election in May 2017 to get an unambiguous mandate and sort out her majority.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
Yes, of course. Think about it, if the company owns the trains and then the franchise changes hands it leaves the new franchise owner a bit stuffed!
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
Yes, of course. Think about it, if the company owns the trains and then the franchise changes hands it leaves the new franchise owner a bit stuffed!
The governmet doesn't own the rolling stock. There's three private companies that lease out the trains.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
Yes, of course. Think about it, if the company owns the trains and then the franchise changes hands it leaves the new franchise owner a bit stuffed!
The governmet doesn't own the rolling stock. There's two private companies that lease out the trains.
Then why the bloody hell is the government paying for new rolling stock?
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
Yes, of course. Think about it, if the company owns the trains and then the franchise changes hands it leaves the new franchise owner a bit stuffed!
The governmet doesn't own the rolling stock. There's two private companies that lease out the trains.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
Yes, of course. Think about it, if the company owns the trains and then the franchise changes hands it leaves the new franchise owner a bit stuffed!
The governmet doesn't own the rolling stock. There's two private companies that lease out the trains.
Then why the bloody hell is the government paying for new rolling stock?
My mistake, the 3 ROSCOs own the vast majority of rolling stock but the government did recently ecently purchase some rolling stock due to believing the Roscos were colluding to fix prices.
The rolling stock sell off when BR was privatised was a scandal, massively under priced.
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
I'm more of a planes man than trains, but the one thing that I see as needing accommodation is some form of competition for the commuter traffic currently served by a monopoly.
Nick: I found this quite hard to write in part because of the first reason you identify. What do we want? And even if I were to put something down, would anyone other than me and mine (and possibly not even them) agree with it. It may surprise you but I do have some sympathy with left-wing criticisms of the EU. It seems to me that the human element is often missing from their world view. I may try to put some ideas down. But I am not a politician, a mere amateur, and I have plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. Why is this stuff not being done by the clever clogs in politics?
Well, if we discuss policy at all, we need to be proactive - otherwise politicians (who are not much more than people like us who specialise in the issue and have access to serious advice) are operating in a vacuum. People complain that politics is something that is done to them rather than something they're involved in but part of the answer has to be that we're proactive in putting foreward what we actually want.
Someone asked me the other day whether Corbyn believed that Parliamentary democracy was relatively unimportant, and I said that he thought that it crucial but that without genuine popular involvement at lower levels it offers only an illusion of democracy, reduced to a quinquennial vote on a choice between two rival sets of slogans. Whatever one thinks of him in other ways, I think he's right on that. If we entirely delegate ideas to politicians, we are delegating any real say it what happens.
I've thought for a long, long time (decades) that the fundamental issue in the 21st century will be coming to terms with the strains between poverty plus rising education in developing countries and wealth and low investment in developoed countries. Of course either the jobs go to the people or the people go to the jobs, and the combination of globalised markets and easier travel is accelerating the process.
In a zero-sum world, it would be inevitable that we would get poorer as the globe rebalances. Fortunately, the world is not zero-sum, since we have all benefited in price terms from cheaper production in China and elsewhere. But I don't think that serious controls on free movement are feasible without the effect that we see in textiles - entire industries simply emigrate. Instead, we should focus on how to mitigate the downsides of free movement, and that has challenges for left (minimum wages under pressure) and right (showing genuine concern for the underskilled workers most affected).
F1: not counting this as a tip because there's £13 only up, but Alonso's 5 on Betfair to reach Q3 (top 10) in qualifying. He's 7th and 5th in the first two practice sessions. Worth considering.
Nick: I found this quite hard to write in part because of the first reason you identify. What do we want? And even if I were to put something down, would anyone other than me and mine (and possibly not even them) agree with it. It may surprise you but I do have some sympathy with left-wing criticisms of the EU. It seems to me that the human element is often missing from their world view. I may try to put some ideas down. But I am not a politician, a mere amateur, and I have plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. Why is this stuff not being done by the clever clogs in politics?
Well, if we discuss policy at all, we need to be proactive - otherwise politicians (who are not much more than people like us who specialise in the issue and have access to serious advice) are operating in a vacuum. People complain that politics is something that is done to them rather than something they're involved in but part of the answer has to be that we're proactive in putting foreward what we actually want.
Someone asked me the other day whether Corbyn believed that Parliamentary democracy was relatively unimportant, and I said that he thought that it crucial but that without genuine popular involvement at lower levels it offers only an illusion of democracy, reduced to a quinquennial vote on a choice between two rival sets of slogans. Whatever one thinks of him in other ways, I think he's right on that. If we entirely delegate ideas to politicians, we are delegating any real say it what happens.
I've thought for a long, long time (decades) that the fundamental issue in the 21st century will be coming to terms with the strains between poverty plus rising education in developing countries and wealth and low investment in developoed countries. Of course either the jobs go to the people or the people go to the jobs, and the combination of globalised markets and easier travel is accelerating the process.
In a zero-sum world, it would be inevitable that we would get poorer as the globe rebalances. Fortunately, the world is not zero-sum, since we have all benefited in price terms from cheaper production in China and elsewhere. But I don't think that serious controls on free movement are feasible without the effect that we see in textiles - entire industries simply emigrate. Instead, we should focus on how to mitigate the downsides of free movement, and that has challenges for left (minimum wages under pressure) and right (showing genuine concern for the underskilled workers most affected).
Agree that we need to be proactive. I was just explaining why, as a busy lawyer, I had not come up with all the answers in this header! It is of course not as easy as it looks.
Interesting thoughts from you. Perhaps worth a header and debating separately?
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Does the gov't own the actual trains (Rolling stock) ? Didn't know that - thought it was Virgin etc..
I thought it was Rolling Stock Operators - independent companies that then lease the trains to the service providers? That was certainly how it was designed at privatisation and I wasn't aware that it had changed since.
The theory is that if the stock is owned independently of the franchisees, then there's less scope for disruption if a franchise is terminated or allowed to expire.
Anti-Government case As a residual power, the prerogative cannot today be extended. The need to ensure executive accountability to Parliament by limiting the exercise of prerogative power, particularly in respect of important decisions affecting citizens' fundamental rights has been endorsed across the political spectrum including the Defendant himself. (David Davis)
Government case A notification under Article 50 would be an administrative act on the international law plane about which complaint cannot be made by any individual claimant in the domestic courts.
The Government may well lose the case and it will then go to appeal which it may also lose.
I think it is becoming increasingly likely that Theresa May will call a General Election in May 2017 to get an unambiguous mandate and sort out her majority.
The legal question is an interesting one, even if the proponents' motivation for raising it are focused on wanting to find a way to prevent Brexit (even though a vote in parliament is by no means certain to prevent it, in fact more likely the opposite).
I had been skeptical of their being an early general election because the mechanism for calling one is a little tricky and at present I see no appetite from anyone for an early election. However, should the government, which has been unequivocal that it has the power to take the decision without going though parliament, loses, I can see the Tories at the least changing tack on that, for mandate purposes as you say.
Despite many previously remainer MPs, surely not much chance the Tories would not go into a snap GE promising to immediately trigger A50 in a vote, not sure about Labour. And given the sky won't have fallen in by 2017, hard to see a great many leave-remain switchers trying to elect a bunch of Remainer MPs (particular since Labour may well stick to Leave too), and Leave will be more exercised than ever - we've already seen the anger at the courts potentially preventing Brexit (even though that is not what would be happening, it would still be in the power of parliament to do it), whenever this subject comes up I hear real visceral anger and worry it would be stealing the referendum result, so I'd expect the usual non-voters who turned out for Leave to do so again.
Nah. Brexiteers haven't even got a coherent vision for Britain, let alone Europe.
Britain has no vision for Europe. It had one at one point when Maggie whipped through the single market reforms, before her regret in doing so.
Faisal Islam posted some information last night from the Thatcher archives about her encouraging Nissan to invest in the UK based on our membership of the single market.
And the Brexiteers on Twitter went mental
Islam is to Remain what Neil is to Leave.
What I found particularly interesting about the Nissan story isn't that they said they'd up sticks and leave if there was a hard Brexit, because they didn't, it was that they expected the UK Government to compensate in other ways.
That could include corporation tax cuts, or more flexible employment law, some deregulation or investment incentives.
As always, there are both costs and benefits to leaving the EU.
And making direct transfers from the UK taxpayer to foreign corporations, for them to stay in the UK, you will I hope agree is an unambiguous cost. As you say, no different from a low tax "enterprise zone", the type of which China has been so successful with.
Much better to just keep reducing corporation taxes and employer NI (the "tax on jobs") to ensure continued competitiveness, than trying to engage with individual large employers looking for subsidies.
It will be interesting to see which course we choose to take (and which one Nissan does also).
Is that the Nissan that closed Sunderland after we didn't join the Euro?
Anti-Government case As a residual power, the prerogative cannot today be extended. The need to ensure executive accountability to Parliament by limiting the exercise of prerogative power, particularly in respect of important decisions affecting citizens' fundamental rights has been endorsed across the political spectrum including the Defendant himself. (David Davis)
Government case A notification under Article 50 would be an administrative act on the international law plane about which complaint cannot be made by any individual claimant in the domestic courts.
The Government may well lose the case and it will then go to appeal which it may also lose.
I think it is becoming increasingly likely that Theresa May will call a General Election in May 2017 to get an unambiguous mandate and sort out her majority.
Mildly ironic that referendum lost because the governments scope to govern has been curtailed and the response is to use an unelected court to reduce the government's scope to govern...
Away from airports for a bit, I've been writing a paper on how to have a step change in our railways along the same lines as how airports work.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
The problem with the idea is that it is not landing and takeoff slots at terminal stations that govern rail travel but paths across the network . Virgin may have the slot at London Euston say but cant move the train out unless they have a path to Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow .
On another topic I have been watching these Lib Dem byelection results over the last few weeks and they are quite remarkable. Swings of over 20% seem the normwhich was SNP magnitude. They are creating the perfect storm for the Tories in areas that voted remain tapping into that cohort and as usual getting their own vote out. Last nights victory in Stow is beyond comprehension..if that is repeated across the board in Witney then the Tories have a fight on their hands. Richmond Park goes back Lib Dem if Goldsmith resigns on present trends.
Comments
F1: P2 just finished. Because of timing, I'll likely write the pre-qualifying piece today, but leave it until I'm a bit more awake.
So I'm sorry if I can't get quite as animated as you do about it.
Britain doesn't know what it wants for Europe and from Europe, that is achievable. It never has done since the Second World War. Which is why Brexit is doomed to failure. It won't resolve anything.
The real shit in this referendum has been Cameron. He sets up a vote and makes no preparation whatever for a No vote. Worse than that, he must have stopped the Civil Service from making contingency plans - they would have done that automatically otherwise. So we have an hiatus of six months or so while the CS scramble round looking at options.
Cameron's view .... vote my way, I know best.
That's the reason I voted Leave. I was lied to in 1975, deliberately lied to, even though some politicians will claim it was a lie of omission. They can treat me as an idiot, but I never forget being considered gullible. Cameron is a "good" politician but hubris did for him in the end. He never considered defeat.
So he flounces happily off. Good riddance.
http://dailym.ai/2da44LA
Cameron laid out a blueprint for Europe in his Bloomberg Speech. it was an excellent piece of analysis and soloutioning. It was entirely ignored, both by him and by his colleagues during the negotiations leading to the referendum. Why? Timidity, partly, on Cameron's part but much more so, a refusal to countenance by the other members and the EU institutions the kinds of changes that would have been necessary to achieve it. If Britain could not even nudge the EU in that direction as a member, what chance of us doing so as we depart, when so many Europeans still see the UK's decision as wrong, irrational and to be punished?
Britain leaving is a disaster for the EU and for Europe, because it significantly increases the chances of the EU itself collapsing in an uncontrolled and acrimonious way, enabling others with nefarious designs to take advantage. Cameron's vision fell flat when up against the intransigence and arrogance of the EU elite (and, perhaps, their fatigue of having to handle all the problems the continent's had since 2008, irrespective of who was to blame for them).
But be that as it may, there's nothing we can realistically do about it now. I disagree with Cyclefree's assertion that setting out an alternative for Europe can form a meaningful part of the withdrawal process. most likely, the rEU will see it as some form of attack on their conceptual basis (rightly), and will react even more defensively.
Certainly, the government needs to set out its broad outline of how it sees the framework of the EU-UK relationship. For example, do we want membership of the Single Market or not? That's a fundamental question, the answer to which either way closes off all sorts of options available to the alternative answer. But beyond that, the government should concentrate on the nuts and bolts of withdrawal and terms of trade.
I only ask because last time it was broadcast from there, Remain seemed to be in the majority.
What time will the German government be buying out Deutsche bank today?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/why-people-have-been-worrying-about-deutsche-bank-in-12-charts
https://twitter.com/HillyFoz/status/781741066638811136
Indeed not, they are picked according to how the BBC want the subject matter to be portrayed.
DEUTSCHE BANK DBKGn.DE CEO SAYS MARKET FORCES IN ACTION TO UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN US -LETTER TO EMPLOYEES
Anyway, that's all in the past and there is no chance of any grand plan given current moods across the EU. Best to aim for hard Brexit with some free trade and to go turbo capitalist in the UK. Some sort of political realignment would also be handy so we could have a sensible opposition and a coherent government.
I'd be delighted to make half that.
Speaking of money stuff, there's a promo for Lake Manor [horror anthology in which I have a short story], the price being cut from now to the end of October (both e-book and hard copies): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Haunting-Lake-Manor-Hotel-ebook/dp/B01DQEDAEE/
http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/37361631
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/after-years-of-dithering-the-government-is-set-to-take-the-plunge-on-heathrow-expansion.html
Italy's economy minister urged a quick answer to the problems of Germany's biggest lender Deutsche Bank in a newspaper interview on Friday, adding it was in everyone's interest "to look for solutions that must then be carefully handled."
"Just like the problem of bad bank loans must be solved within a reasonable time frame, so it should be for Deutsche Bank's problems," Pier Carlo Padoan told Italian daily La Stampa.
I can imagine there is a serious amount of schadenfreude in the halls of the Italian finance ministry today.
For instance, the concepts of free movement, of asylum, migration etc need to be rethought for the world we are in now. They are not being rethought. On one side "free movement" is repeatedly chanted at ever higher volume like a child reciting the Catechism without really understanding it. And on the other there is a retreat to a wish for a world where people do not move readily and control is more manageable. This cannot go on. Someone needs to start the hard work of rethinking this. Why not us?
Re your second point: I can see the force of what you say. But Europe has not listened to us either and if it had we would not be where we are. This is not about telling them how to live their lives. But we need to have a good relationship with them afterwards. Worth debating surely?
Sorry don't know how you embed tweets
edit: apparently I do!
If you look at the amount of RMBS DB issued, and compare it to the amount issued by the big US banks, then the fine should be in the range of $3-4bn.
Alternatively, if the is in the $10 to $20bn range, which I have heard (although it's all rumours, so please don't put any credence on it), then I would have thought they will need to raise capital asap.
The sell off, one would think, is probably therefore people shorting the stock, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to buy it back at a discount price when there's a rights issue.
How does Question Time select its audiences?
The short answer is: with great care.
People apply through a phone number given on the programme or via the website.
They are then questioned about their views, voting intentions, background etc, in much the same way as an opinion poll.
From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section.
If, from those applying in a particular area, they feel any group or view is under-represented, they will - occasionally - contact local groups to encourage their members to apply to be in the audience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4202800/4202877.stm
But the question as put for an either/or job of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Stanstead was ridiculous.
Heathrow needs to expand because it is at capacity for itself, on it's own flight traffic in/out (Schipol has 6 runways and is less busy I think !)
It should have no bearing on expansion at any other UK airport.
But her inept handling of grammar schools does not bode well. Is this why she really failed at immigration and border controls even though she sat at the head of them for 6 years?
Yes, that would be my guess also, though one wonders who will buy into the rights issue when there is a potential $14bn fine hanging over them. Any money pumped in will be lost immediately and they'll be back on the precipice with an unprofitable investment bank with huge contingent liabilities and a barely profitable retail bank struggling with low interest rates and a negative deposit rate.
*Crosses fingers*
"Or, if you want the facts:"
Thanks for the info.
So with a 76% vote for Brexit locally, and "From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section." - I'd expect three quarters of the audience to be Leavers?
First of all the Leave vote was entirely negative: no EU, no immigration, no money to the corrupt EU, no foreign courts telling us what to do. To some extent that's the nature of a Yes/No referendums. At least one of the options will be a negative one. Nevertheless the decision of the Leave campaign not to put up any alternative vision or direction was a deliberate one to keep their canvas blank.
Theresa May needs as a matter of urgency to put together a policy and to sell that policy to her MPs and the public. Policies have to be something and can't be defined in negatives. Saying "I am not going to talk about it, nor allow Parliament to have a say" isn't policy and it isn't getting buy-in
Take refugees from camps on the borders of the country. Provide help in the region of the problem(s).
Get on top of the misery of Human Trafficers.
But they are tough questions that can not be addressed by using the regulations laid down 40 or 60 years ago which were appropriate to the world at that time. Those regulations are not fit for purpose in the mobile (both transport and communications) world of today.
Very similar to our NHS. The system was great for the world of 40 to 60 years ago, but it needs to be radically changed to fit into the expectations of the modern world. Incidentally, what is the difference between Big Sam (ex England Boss) earning an extra wodge for addressing an overseas forum in his own time and an NHS consultant earning dosh from working privately?
The LHR plan should be for two new runways, otherwise we will be having the same arguements again within a few years of the third one. There is provision for this in the last govt. report.
One problem is that German regulators are some of the weakest and most feeble in Europe, one reason why I am sceptical about the claims that Frankfurt could be a realistic replacement for London as a financial services centre. DB has been described by our own regulator as "unregulatable". It is in effect bust. The CEO knows what he has to do but trying to do it against the inertia of the institution, its unwillingness to change and in the time available is all but impossible. This is one time when you need the active involvement of governmental authorities to stabilise the situation while you execute a strategy to shrink the bank.
The basic idea is that each terminal station has landing and take off slots and any company can bid for any slot at a government auction. Unpopular slots in the afternoon go for cheap and peak time slots are more expensive. Commuters can buy season tickets with the company (say Virgin trains) that has bought peak time slots while ordinary people can travel on non-peak services for very cheap with Easytrain. Given that the government owns the rolling stock and the tracks there really isn't much of an issue with companies wet leasing trains either.
Tbh I wish the US would just crack on with the fines...
Anti-Government case
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PCIPs-Article-50-skeleton-redacted.pdf
Government case https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/Defendant_s_Detailed_Grounds_of_Resistance_for_publication.PDF
Flavour of arguments:
Anti-Government case
As a residual power, the prerogative cannot today be extended.
The need to ensure executive accountability to Parliament by limiting the exercise of prerogative power, particularly in respect of important decisions affecting citizens' fundamental rights has been endorsed across the political spectrum including the Defendant himself. (David Davis)
Government case
A notification under Article 50 would be an administrative act on the international law plane about which complaint cannot be made by any individual claimant in the domestic courts.
The Government may well lose the case and it will then go to appeal which it may also lose.
I think it is becoming increasingly likely that Theresa May will call a General Election in May 2017 to get an unambiguous mandate and sort out her majority.
http://order-order.com/2016/09/30/ukip-gives-taxpayers-52-rebate/
The rolling stock sell off when BR was privatised was a scandal, massively under priced.
Someone asked me the other day whether Corbyn believed that Parliamentary democracy was relatively unimportant, and I said that he thought that it crucial but that without genuine popular involvement at lower levels it offers only an illusion of democracy, reduced to a quinquennial vote on a choice between two rival sets of slogans. Whatever one thinks of him in other ways, I think he's right on that. If we entirely delegate ideas to politicians, we are delegating any real say it what happens.
I've thought for a long, long time (decades) that the fundamental issue in the 21st century will be coming to terms with the strains between poverty plus rising education in developing countries and wealth and low investment in developoed countries. Of course either the jobs go to the people or the people go to the jobs, and the combination of globalised markets and easier travel is accelerating the process.
In a zero-sum world, it would be inevitable that we would get poorer as the globe rebalances. Fortunately, the world is not zero-sum, since we have all benefited in price terms from cheaper production in China and elsewhere. But I don't think that serious controls on free movement are feasible without the effect that we see in textiles - entire industries simply emigrate. Instead, we should focus on how to mitigate the downsides of free movement, and that has challenges for left (minimum wages under pressure) and right (showing genuine concern for the underskilled workers most affected).
Contractual obligations, perhaps. See the Dresdner case here of a few years ago for example.
Interesting thoughts from you. Perhaps worth a header and debating separately?
Office for National Statistics has revised up GDP for the second quarter of 2016 to 0.7% from a previous estimate of 0.6%
Pence a good bet for Republican nominee in 2020? Could unify the Trump crazies and traditional republicans.
The theory is that if the stock is owned independently of the franchisees, then there's less scope for disruption if a franchise is terminated or allowed to expire.
I had been skeptical of their being an early general election because the mechanism for calling one is a little tricky and at present I see no appetite from anyone for an early election. However, should the government, which has been unequivocal that it has the power to take the decision without going though parliament, loses, I can see the Tories at the least changing tack on that, for mandate purposes as you say.
Despite many previously remainer MPs, surely not much chance the Tories would not go into a snap GE promising to immediately trigger A50 in a vote, not sure about Labour. And given the sky won't have fallen in by 2017, hard to see a great many leave-remain switchers trying to elect a bunch of Remainer MPs (particular since Labour may well stick to Leave too), and Leave will be more exercised than ever - we've already seen the anger at the courts potentially preventing Brexit (even though that is not what would be happening, it would still be in the power of parliament to do it), whenever this subject comes up I hear real visceral anger and worry it would be stealing the referendum result, so I'd expect the usual non-voters who turned out for Leave to do so again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
At the time of its construction, the barrier was expected to be used 2–3 times per year. It is now being used 6–7 times per year
Swings of over 20% seem the normwhich was SNP magnitude.
They are creating the perfect storm for the Tories in areas that voted remain tapping into that cohort and as usual getting their own vote out.
Last nights victory in Stow is beyond comprehension..if that is repeated across the board in Witney then the Tories have a fight on their hands.
Richmond Park goes back Lib Dem if Goldsmith resigns on present trends.