I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.
When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?
We will see, but the bond market is definitely expecting both economic growth and inflation to rise sharply under Trump.
Unemployment is already very low in america, but most jobs are low paid ones and most people have dropped out of the labour market too. It will be interesting to see what happens when you push economic growth with tons of cash in that labour environment.
A spurt of 5% growth 5% inflation could be the top side, Trump will definitely try to buy tons of cheap popularity by giving voters jobs and money, and if he goes protectionist that cash will stay inside the economy.
This months input price figure is about 4.5% up on last year, and factory gate price inflation is at a three-year high. It is surprising that it is taking so long to feed through to retail prices, particularly as in some sectors the higher prices are already obvious. But it is coming, for sure.
Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.
When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?
We will see, but the bond market is definitely expecting both economic growth and inflation to rise sharply under Trump.
Unemployment is already very low in america, but most jobs are low paid ones and most people have dropped out of the labour market too. It will be interesting to see what happens when you push economic growth with tons of cash in that labour environment.
A spurt of 5% growth 5% inflation could be the top side, Trump will definitely try to buy tons of cheap popularity by giving voters jobs and money, and if he goes protectionist that cash will stay inside the economy.
Mr. Speedy, I don't know how far your memory goes back, but I certainly would not regard 5% as high inflation. A bit above the ideal perhaps but nothing to get excited about.
As to the markets, I have become increasingly disillusioned over the past couple of decades. Most of the traders seem to be young men motivated by their annual bonuses, and advised by analysts equally young and similarly motivated. The connection between market movements and the real world economies or companies' performances seem increasingly tenuous. Then we have the automatic trading mechanisms where computer speaks to computer and they buy and sell without human input, they seem crackers to me. There is no thought involved in such trades just trying to beat the trend by fractions of a second and in doing so can set up a real trend.
Markets are shifting because of news in the MSM and those shifts give the MSM something to report. Shares in a company could bounce around all over the place as a result when nothing has actually changed nothing that actually matters in the real world anyway.
We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.
When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?
We will see, but the bond market is definitely expecting both economic growth and inflation to rise sharply under Trump.
Unemployment is already very low in america, but most jobs are low paid ones and most people have dropped out of the labour market too. It will be interesting to see what happens when you push economic growth with tons of cash in that labour environment.
A spurt of 5% growth 5% inflation could be the top side, Trump will definitely try to buy tons of cheap popularity by giving voters jobs and money, and if he goes protectionist that cash will stay inside the economy.
This months input price figure is about 4.5% up on last year, and factory gate price inflation is at a three-year high. It is surprising that it is taking so long to feed through to retail prices, particularly as in some sectors the higher prices are already obvious. But it is coming, for sure.
Possibly, but this round of inflation is being driven rather differently, by the rising cost of imports and devaluation, rather than rising demand and wage inflation. The fact that despite devaluation, inflation remains flat suggests that we are in deflation in reality.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.
LOL @ the Lib Dems. The party of the 48%... More like the party of the eurofanatics.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
If he's saying he's joining the party specifically to make things more difficult for the party, the chances are that joining the party isn't his primary intention.
Both party changes are pretty amazing but Republican most of all.
13.5% swing from Dems and a 35% swing for the GOP
Haven't seen those type of swings since the Scotland at the 2015 general election
Partisanship.
But I suspect these are the real figures, since we are in this limbo where both Obama and Trump are presidents their voters have no reason to lie for political partisanship reasons.
Scott P, you posted that earlier today. Do you have your own view on today's CPI figures and future inflation? If so what is it? Today's figures suggest your "massive inflation" projection may be wide of the mark. What did you mean by massive inflation by the way? 2%, 3% do tell.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
Well, their employers obviously. They have been assured that they will not be made redundant but we shall see. What share of the buildings built with British taxpayers money do we own? And the EIB? Etc.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
Although Farage is definitely now a historical figure having influenced both european and american history, I still can't see him winning a seat in Parliament unless Brexit is kicked in the long grass.
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
I'd go to another chippie if I were you. Your one is plainly taking the piss. Or just ask them what products they serve are actually imported and how come fish and chip shops elsewhere have not needed to put up prices.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.
The EU sure is a bad negotiator.
This is all just anchoring.
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.
Oh please, it's bluster, and pre-negotiation bombast.
Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.
Walking out is a fine tactic and nothing wrong with it. But threats need to have some element of credibility about them or they are simply met with derisory laughter. And this certainly falls into that territory.
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.
The EU sure is a bad negotiator.
This is all just anchoring.
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.
Presumably if we simply refused to pay, we'd be out in March 2019, with no deal and an EU refusal even to discuss one until we paid up.
Anyway, since we're back on Brexit, I think I'll be off.
As I said earlier, it's "give us €60bn, or you have to leave in two years and pay us NOTHING"
Remember: 1, this if just a newspaper story, and 2, both sides have an interest in assisting as hardline as possible prior to negotiations. Hence the rubbish that dr fox came out with any South Korea renegotiating the deal with the EU if we were no longer members.
On topic, people currently working as lawyers will adapt to new jobs.
The people struggling with competition from robots (or immigrants) are people who can't or don't want to change. These people are strongly represented in rural areas, because if they weren't resistant to change they'd already have moved to bigger towns where there are more opportunities.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.
I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.
We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.
LOL @ the Lib Dems. The party of the 48%... More like the party of the eurofanatics.
Well quite. I've been saying for a while that their apparent "Ukip for Remainers" strategy is cuckoo. The EU attracts less in the way of passionate support than it does loathing, and one would therefore expect a single-issue party campaigning either to veto Brexit, or to get back into the EU, to receive less support than the one which has campaigned to leave it.
Ukip consistently polls in the low teens, which is also where it ended up in the General Election. Thus, I reckon the Continuity Remain Yellows will be doing well to get much above 10% - especially being completely overshadowed on the Left by Labour, which even in its current dreadful state is still vastly stronger than they are.
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.
The EU sure is a bad negotiator.
This is all just anchoring.
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.
Oh please, it's bluster, and pre-negotiation bombast.
Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.
Walking out is a fine tactic and nothing wrong with it. But threats need to have some element of credibility about them or they are simply met with derisory laughter. And this certainly falls into that territory.
Don't forget, we are owed 14% of the net assets of the EU. The goal, one would imagine, would be too create a liability as close as possible in value to 14% of the EU's net assets.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left.
Holidays, clothing, some other super essentials now cheaper.
Meanwhile fripperies such as fuel and manufacturing inputs up significantly.
Still, I'm at a loss as to why inflation went down despite fuel going up. I thought that would be a significant driver for inflation.
Inflation was 0.9% so the rate slowed.
The reality is that a significant factor of our growth remains consumption-driven. People continue to spend. Hence the quantity of cheaper goods at slightly less higher prices meant the rate of inflation slowed.
As Mark Carney (and other economists) have noted, at some point this growth in consumption will unwind.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left yet.
No I'm sorry. Your hero Osborne said there would be an immediate recession.
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.
Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.
They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.
Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.
The EU sure is a bad negotiator.
Actually the EU is a good negotiator for this kind of deal. They have done more of them than anyone else. They are very focused but they do want the deal. Success for them is to get the other side to agree, pretty much on their terms. Most of the time they achieve it.
Here Michel Barnier sets out to EU stakeholders how he expects to shape the negotiations and what he has that can be traded away. He wants to know their requirements of the British so he can negotiate accordingly. It also sets up expectations for the British side so they can engage effectively without wasting time on demands that will never be agreed.
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.
The EU sure is a bad negotiator.
This is all just anchoring.
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.
Oh please, it's bluster, and pre-negotiation bombast.
Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.
Walking out is a fine tactic and nothing wrong with it. But threats need to have some element of credibility about them or they are simply met with derisory laughter. And this certainly falls into that territory.
Don't forget, we are owed 14% of the net assets of the EU. The goal, one would imagine, would be too create a liability as close as possible in value to 14% of the EU's net assets.
Yep. I would accept a wash. But we will not pay anything unless we get something we want in exchange. It would be political suicide to do otherwise.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left yet.
No I'm sorry. Your hero Osborne said there would be an immediate recession.
I'm not sure Osborne is a PB Remainer, which is what you said in your post.
I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?
We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left yet.
No I'm sorry. Your hero Osborne said there would be an immediate recession.
To be fair, that was based on Article 50 being executed immediately.
The way elements of the campaign to leave the EU sought to “toxify the debate” before the referendum is likely to have contributed to an increase in reported hate crimes, MPs have heard.
Taking evidence on the subject from groups which deal with hate crimes, the home affairs committee was told that interventions by Boris Johnson and by Leave.EU, co-founded by the Ukip donor Arron Banks, had been particularly worrying.
“I do think that there was a deliberate strategy. Not to encourage attacks on the street, but in a sense, that was one of the consequences,” said Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate, which investigates the actions of those who follow extremist groups.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.
I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.
Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).
Random question: if the Dow Jones keeps rising, whilst the FTSE has been flat in 20 years, is that due to the return of capital to shareholders or something else?
Scott P, you posted that earlier today. Do you have your own view on today's CPI figures and future inflation? If so what is it? Today's figures suggest your "massive inflation" projection may be wide of the mark. What did you mean by massive inflation by the way? 2%, 3% do tell.
My rule of thumb about a rise of inflation from a devaluation is always Imports as a share of GDP multiplied by the size of the devaluation since the start of the year.
So 24%*0.15=3.6%
Since inflation was zero you should get just 3.6%.
It doesn't always work, it depends on monetary policy and trade policy that might mitigate or exaggerate it.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.
I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.
Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).
Doesn't have to be limited to the UK. There are plenty of EU-owned property elsewhere, which were funded by all members of the EU.
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.
Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.
They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.
Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.
Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.
They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.
Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
So we're owed 10bn Euros net? Isn't that 33 new hospitals?
This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.
Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.
This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it. IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.
Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.
I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.
Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).
Yes we do. We also own a share of the EIB, and lots of other things.
The negotiations regarding division of assets is going to be contentious.
This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.
Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.
This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it. IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.
Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.
My question is what are the dynamics of a Fillon-Le Pen race.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
So we're owed 10bn Euros net? Isn't that 33 new hospitals?
Around 15% of the EU's assets are in Greek government bonds, which if a further complication...
This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.
Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.
This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it. IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.
Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.
My question is what are the dynamics of a Fillon-Le Pen race.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
So we're owed 10bn Euros net? Isn't that 33 new hospitals?
Around 15% of the EU's assets are in Greek government bonds, which if a further complication...
I vote we don't include any greek bonds in our 14% share
This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.
Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.
This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it. IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.
Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.
My question is what are the dynamics of a Fillon-Le Pen race.
Fillon would win, comfortably. Give Sarkozy would win, and Juppé would win by miles, seems a safe enough conclusion. Le Pen is too short.
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.
Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.
They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.
Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.
Have fish exports risen ?
We're a net importer of fish.
We may be a net importer, but we still export a huge amount of top quality seafood - to France and Spain in particular.
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?
Bet you we do, though.
Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.
Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?
The EU, I would have thought.
The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
So we're owed 10bn Euros net? Isn't that 33 new hospitals?
Around 15% of the EU's assets are in Greek government bonds, which if a further complication...
I always thought the assets of the EU where hot air and toilet paper.
Comments
As to the markets, I have become increasingly disillusioned over the past couple of decades. Most of the traders seem to be young men motivated by their annual bonuses, and advised by analysts equally young and similarly motivated. The connection between market movements and the real world economies or companies' performances seem increasingly tenuous. Then we have the automatic trading mechanisms where computer speaks to computer and they buy and sell without human input, they seem crackers to me. There is no thought involved in such trades just trying to beat the trend by fractions of a second and in doing so can set up a real trend.
Markets are shifting because of news in the MSM and those shifts give the MSM something to report. Shares in a company could bounce around all over the place as a result when nothing has actually changed nothing that actually matters in the real world anyway.
Haven't seen those type of swings since the Scotland at the 2015 general election
We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.
Might we have a competition thread on the size of her eventual lead, Mike? Results sometime in January 2017.
Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.
Meanwhile fripperies such as fuel and manufacturing inputs up significantly.
But I suspect these are the real figures, since we are in this limbo where both Obama and Trump are presidents their voters have no reason to lie for political partisanship reasons.
......of the world. Anecdata is the way forward.
Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.
The way things are going the papacy is Nigels for the taking.
Remember: 1, this if just a newspaper story, and 2, both sides have an interest in assisting as hardline as possible prior to negotiations. Hence the rubbish that dr fox came out with any South Korea renegotiating the deal with the EU if we were no longer members.
The people struggling with competition from robots (or immigrants) are people who can't or don't want to change. These people are strongly represented in rural areas, because if they weren't resistant to change they'd already have moved to bigger towns where there are more opportunities.
Ukip consistently polls in the low teens, which is also where it ended up in the General Election. Thus, I reckon the Continuity Remain Yellows will be doing well to get much above 10% - especially being completely overshadowed on the Left by Labour, which even in its current dreadful state is still vastly stronger than they are.
The reality is that a significant factor of our growth remains consumption-driven. People continue to spend. Hence the quantity of cheaper goods at slightly less higher prices meant the rate of inflation slowed.
As Mark Carney (and other economists) have noted, at some point this growth in consumption will unwind.
Here Michel Barnier sets out to EU stakeholders how he expects to shape the negotiations and what he has that can be traded away. He wants to know their requirements of the British so he can negotiate accordingly. It also sets up expectations for the British side so they can engage effectively without wasting time on demands that will never be agreed.
Taking evidence on the subject from groups which deal with hate crimes, the home affairs committee was told that interventions by Boris Johnson and by Leave.EU, co-founded by the Ukip donor Arron Banks, had been particularly worrying.
“I do think that there was a deliberate strategy. Not to encourage attacks on the street, but in a sense, that was one of the consequences,” said Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate, which investigates the actions of those who follow extremist groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/brexit-debate-referendum-boris-johnson-hate-crimes-immigration
The Times say Deloitte only issued their statement after pressure from the government amid fears the firm would be stripped of future contracts
So 24%*0.15=3.6%
Since inflation was zero you should get just 3.6%.
It doesn't always work, it depends on monetary policy and trade policy that might mitigate or exaggerate it.
(all contributor states, I should say)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/angela-merkel-suggests-she-is-willing-to-compromise-on-free-move/
Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.
Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.
For the first time a poll gives Fillon (+9) and Sarkozy (-1) tied at 25% on the Republicains primary's first round, with Juppé at 33% (-7).
Fillon would beat either Sarkozy (63/37) or Juppé (54/46) on the second round. Juppé would beat Sarkozy easily (57/43)
Link for those who read French:
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/sondage-exclusif-francois-fillon-rattrape-nicolas-sarkozy-pour-1er-tour-primaire-et-battrait-largement-alain-juppe-au-second-2880518.html
This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.
Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.
This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it.
IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.
Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.
The negotiations regarding division of assets is going to be contentious.