It wasn't so long ago that professional people here were explaining that the tobin tax would drive the market here to America. It seems certain that the tobin tax will go through now. If so, what are the advantages of staying in for the banks?
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
When I read sensible posts like this I first check I am on PB, then look forward to the RCS govt...
It wasn't so long ago that professional people here were explaining that the tobin tax would drive the market here to America. It seems certain that the tobin tax will go through now. If so, what are the advantages of staying in for the banks?
Of course, the Uk is probably the only country in the world that has shady implemented the Tobin tax. You didn't know? It's called stamp duty. The current EU proposal (which I suspect still won't happen) is basically the UK's stamp duty with a couple of other asset classes tacked on. (Although now government bonds and their derivatives have been taken out, it has become essentially worthless.)
Motorola made a big play of producing phones in the US only for the whole company to be sold to the Chinese a couple of years later.
When you say whole company it's worth bearing in mind that bits like the semiconductor division*, set top box bit, telecoms hardware and other stuff had been spun off over the years. What was left was an already failing mobile phone company and some patents. Google bought that, ran it for a while**, and then sold it minus most of the key patents to Lenovo.
So a lot of the real value in what was once the huge Motorola company still remains in US hands.
* Freescale, which merged with NXP, and is now being bought by Qualcomm.
** And made some damn nice phones like the original Moto X and Moto G.
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
If Lady Hale is having to answer questions about recusing herself, then surely she has become the story, and recusing herself is exactly what she should do?
It wasn't so long ago that professional people here were explaining that the tobin tax would drive the market here to America. It seems certain that the tobin tax will go through now. If so, what are the advantages of staying in for the banks?
Of course, the Uk is probably the only country in the world that has shady implemented the Tobin tax. You didn't know? It's called stamp duty. The current EU proposal (which I suspect still won't happen) is basically the UK's stamp duty with a couple of other asset classes tacked on. (Although now government bonds and their derivatives have been taken out, it has become essentially worthless.)
I think the latest version of the FTT includes derivatives trades.
It wasn't so long ago that professional people here were explaining that the tobin tax would drive the market here to America. It seems certain that the tobin tax will go through now. If so, what are the advantages of staying in for the banks?
Of course, the Uk is probably the only country in the world that has shady implemented the Tobin tax. You didn't know? It's called stamp duty. The current EU proposal (which I suspect still won't happen) is basically the UK's stamp duty with a couple of other asset classes tacked on. (Although now government bonds and their derivatives have been taken out, it has become essentially worthless.)
I think the latest version of the FTT includes derivatives trades.
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
My point is that the UK financial services industry - by and large although not universally - works prefer us to stay in the single market for financial services. They wish this because it avoids then incurring the triple costs of relocation, a worse regulatory environment, and the requirement to hold more capital*.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
There is a general principle that tax is levied at such a rate to make the work worthless. Look at this link, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/ and try to convince yourselves that German interests won't tax you to oblivion. The German government is likely to have to raise a great deal of money - extra defence spending of 30 billion euro at a minimum - extra contributions to make up for us leaving - help for Greece - help for Italy perhaps. If we accept a foreign government can tax us we will be the biggest mugs in the world.
It wasn't so long ago that professional people here were explaining that the tobin tax would drive the market here to America. It seems certain that the tobin tax will go through now. If so, what are the advantages of staying in for the banks?
Of course, the Uk is probably the only country in the world that has shady implemented the Tobin tax. You didn't know? It's called stamp duty. The current EU proposal (which I suspect still won't happen) is basically the UK's stamp duty with a couple of other asset classes tacked on. (Although now government bonds and their derivatives have been taken out, it has become essentially worthless.)
There is a little irony here concerning Stamp Duty. Following the fighting in North America during the Seven years war, a significant British garrisson was deemed nessecary. Stamp Duty had existed in England since the Seventeenth Century, and at the conclusion of the war was extended to the American Colonies so they would at least pay something towards the costs. This led to the Stamp Act Congress and the 13 Colonies developing significant anti British feeling, hence "No taxation without representation".
This is generally held to be one of the "unfair" taxes that led to the Colonies violently seperating from the UK, aided by finance and troops from Britains great imperial rival. While the frogs suceeded in seperating the Angloshphere, the financial costs of doing so were a factor in bringing on the French Revolution.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin may well want to read their history so as to avoid repeating the mistake, or on the other hand may not...
The immobilising effect of Brexit extends everywhere.
In theory, that would change if there were a general election that spelled out the government’s terms and in which May won a mandate for them. That’s why, with the Tories enjoying robust poll leads over Labour, there is recurrent talk about an early election. But the Conservatives face an insurmountable problem. Even if there were no other impediments to an early election, such as the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, they cannot call one without an agreement on Brexit terms over which they are split. So, no election.
The government is increasingly paralysed over Brexit. There aren’t hundreds of Tory backbench zealots who want to turn their backs completely on an EU deal; but there are enough to make any such deal too divisive to risk
I have just spent 24 hours in Richmond Park. Some observations: in many parts of the constituency you would not know there was a by election taking place but there are exceptions - Petersham Rd has a fine array of posters in terms of stakeboards the Lib Dems are leading Zac by 10 to 1 but window posters are more even Labour has opened an office about 50 yards from the Lib Dem HQ - it has 4 desks visible with computers but only two people in attendance Zac is holding meetings in pubs - this morning in the Coach and Horses in Kew with about 30 mostly elderly people in attendance I drove past a blue plaque in honour of Richard Dimbleby Sarah Olney had a photo op at the London Wetlands Centre No idea who is going to win.
One of my colleagues is a labour member and has been helping the LibDems in Richmond. They reckon it'll be Zac by 2,000 votes
I have just spent 24 hours in Richmond Park. Some observations: in many parts of the constituency you would not know there was a by election taking place but there are exceptions - Petersham Rd has a fine array of posters in terms of stakeboards the Lib Dems are leading Zac by 10 to 1 but window posters are more even Labour has opened an office about 50 yards from the Lib Dem HQ - it has 4 desks visible with computers but only two people in attendance Zac is holding meetings in pubs - this morning in the Coach and Horses in Kew with about 30 mostly elderly people in attendance I drove past a blue plaque in honour of Richard Dimbleby Sarah Olney had a photo op at the London Wetlands Centre No idea who is going to win.
One of my colleagues is a labour member and has been helping the LibDems in Richmond. They reckon it'll be Zac by 2,000 votes
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
My point is that the UK financial services industry - by and large although not universally - works prefer us to stay in the single market for financial services. They wish this because it avoids then incurring the triple costs of relocation, a worse regulatory environment, and the requirement to hold more capital*.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
Yes, but the electorate have two basic beliefs in relation to banking and the EU.
The bankers are unscrupulous and 'bankrupted' the country and the EU is an appalling organisation that is taking advantage of Britain.
At voting level, it's likely to look very bad for the government - paying to protect bankers (even if passed off as a bankers' levy) whilst letting the EU get away with whatever it wants.
There is a general principle that tax is levied at such a rate to make the work worthless. Look at this link, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/ and try to convince yourselves that German interests won't tax you to oblivion. The German government is likely to have to raise a great deal of money - extra defence spending of 30 billion euro at a minimum - extra contributions to make up for us leaving - help for Greece - help for Italy perhaps. If we accept a foreign government can tax us we will be the biggest mugs in the world.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that - if we accept a higher fee for accessing the Single Market than would otherwise be the case - the beneficiaries should shoulder some of the costs rather than it falling on the country as a whole. We would implement and administer a tax.
Think of it like the reverse of giving Nissan subsidies.
I have just spent 24 hours in Richmond Park. Some observations: in many parts of the constituency you would not know there was a by election taking place but there are exceptions - Petersham Rd has a fine array of posters in terms of stakeboards the Lib Dems are leading Zac by 10 to 1 but window posters are more even Labour has opened an office about 50 yards from the Lib Dem HQ - it has 4 desks visible with computers but only two people in attendance Zac is holding meetings in pubs - this morning in the Coach and Horses in Kew with about 30 mostly elderly people in attendance I drove past a blue plaque in honour of Richard Dimbleby Sarah Olney had a photo op at the London Wetlands Centre No idea who is going to win.
One of my colleagues is a labour member and has been helping the LibDems in Richmond. They reckon it'll be Zac by 2,000 votes
He/she risks expulsion by doing that!
Party before everything else, eh?
I do not belong to any party, but to me it does not seem unreasonable that campaigning against your own candidate should lead to expulsion.
Rhetoric, blah blah, surrogate, blah blah, wait and see, blah blah.
That's like arguing the UK government can expel Jews from the UK now because of the edict of expulsion in 1290
It was the supposedly narrow minded Oliver Cromwell that resored the right to return to Jews in Britain in 1656. He was much more tolerant than Stuart Royalist propaganda allows.
There is a general principle that tax is levied at such a rate to make the work worthless. Look at this link, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/ and try to convince yourselves that German interests won't tax you to oblivion. The German government is likely to have to raise a great deal of money - extra defence spending of 30 billion euro at a minimum - extra contributions to make up for us leaving - help for Greece - help for Italy perhaps. If we accept a foreign government can tax us we will be the biggest mugs in the world.
It is worth remembering that German government debt to GDP is low and falling (it's 30% below ours as a percentage of GDP) so they have plenty of ability to pay for defence without blowing a hole in their budgets.
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
My point is that the UK financial services industry - by and large although not universally - works prefer us to stay in the single market for financial services. They wish this because it avoids then incurring the triple costs of relocation, a worse regulatory environment, and the requirement to hold more capital*.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
Yes, but the electorate have two basic beliefs in relation to banking and the EU.
The bankers are unscrupulous and 'bankrupted' the country and the EU is an appalling organisation that is taking advantage of Britain.
At voting level, it's likely to look very bad for the government - paying to protect bankers (even if passed off as a bankers' levy) whilst letting the EU get away with whatever it wants.
I think losing billions of pounds of revenue from the financial services industry in the Uk would be worse but your mileage may vary.
Hard to enforce given that if we don't like the terms we just drop out after two years...
They are probably just annoyed that they'll be contributing even more after we leave
I suspect they won't; I expect we'll get almost exactly what we want (no ECJ in domestic law, passporting, limits on migration) except it will come with a stonking great bill. (Which will be partly paid for by a special Global Financial Institutions Levy.)
No-one knows of course. My own wild guesses:
No direct ECJ oversight over UK domestic law but we will be obliged to implement EU directives to into UK domestic law to comply with the treaties and the EU will have some compliance checking mechanism. That last bit is missing from the Swiss bilaterals and it exercises the EU no end. No passporting - our finance industry is too big a prize for other countries to pass up. If that's the case there will be limits on migration, but the EU will want to formalise a reciprocal set of limits the other way. It may be more an agreement to set a different policy rather than us doing whatever we feel like - while we are still in treaties with the EU. We stay in the Customs Union - otherwise the Nissan commitment comes unstuck. And then we get onto agriculture, which will dominate everything. The EU has a large trading surplus with us on agricultural products which it will want to continue, but the forum for those talks will largely be at the WTO where we need to negotiate our schedules with third parties. The EU will also be working their relationships.
The contributions bill will be set at a level that doesn't derail the deal.
Rhetoric, blah blah, surrogate, blah blah, wait and see, blah blah.
That's like arguing the UK government can expel Jews from the UK now because of the edict of expulsion in 1290
It was the supposedly narrow minded Oliver Cromwell that resored the right to return to Jews in Britain in 1656. He was much more tolerant than Stuart Royalist propaganda allows.
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
My point is that the UK financial services industry - by and large although not universally - works prefer us to stay in the single market for financial services. They wish this because it avoids then incurring the triple costs of relocation, a worse regulatory environment, and the requirement to hold more capital*.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
Yes, but the electorate have two basic beliefs in relation to banking and the EU.
The bankers are unscrupulous and 'bankrupted' the country and the EU is an appalling organisation that is taking advantage of Britain.
At voting level, it's likely to look very bad for the government - paying to protect bankers (even if passed off as a bankers' levy) whilst letting the EU get away with whatever it wants.
I think losing billions of pounds of revenue from the financial services industry in the Uk would be worse but your mileage may vary.
There is an economy beyond financial services, and way beyond the EU. The Europeans make £100bn a year from us using it for goods.
There is a general principle that tax is levied at such a rate to make the work worthless. Look at this link, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/ and try to convince yourselves that German interests won't tax you to oblivion. The German government is likely to have to raise a great deal of money - extra defence spending of 30 billion euro at a minimum - extra contributions to make up for us leaving - help for Greece - help for Italy perhaps. If we accept a foreign government can tax us we will be the biggest mugs in the world.
It is worth remembering that German government debt to GDP is low and falling (it's 30% below ours as a percentage of GDP) so they have plenty of ability to pay for defence without blowing a hole in their budgets.
isn't that what the British government thought in respect of the 13 Colonies in 1765?
It may well be that Germany may not want, or need to spend that much on defence. The rEU does have a GDP of 7 times Russia in PPP terms, so eaual sized forces would bankrupt Russia first.
Though Putin's troll farms and Wikileaks have demonstrated a lot of bang for their buck.
Rhetoric, blah blah, surrogate, blah blah, wait and see, blah blah.
That's like arguing the UK government can expel Jews from the UK now because of the edict of expulsion in 1290
It was the supposedly narrow minded Oliver Cromwell that resored the right to return to Jews in Britain in 1656. He was much more tolerant than Stuart Royalist propaganda allows.
You are lucky JackW has taken a leave of absence!
I think the JackW fine pie factory has converted to produce only humble pie!
Though if everyone on PB left when they got a prediction wrong, there would be nearly no-one left, and the few that were would be insufferable!
Rhetoric, blah blah, surrogate, blah blah, wait and see, blah blah.
That's like arguing the UK government can expel Jews from the UK now because of the edict of expulsion in 1290
It was the supposedly narrow minded Oliver Cromwell that resored the right to return to Jews in Britain in 1656. He was much more tolerant than Stuart Royalist propaganda allows.
You are lucky JackW has taken a leave of absence!
I think the JackW fine pie factory has converted to produce only humble pie!
Though if everyone on PB left when they got a prediction wrong, there would be nearly no-one left, and the few that were would be insufferable!
I can understand the EU trying to charge a bank for access to their market - but why do you think the tax payer will pay it for them?
The point is that if we (the Uk) have to pay to stay in the single market for financial services, then it makes most sense for the beneficiaries of that to pick up at least some of the bill.
Presumably we'll be charging them similarly on goods?
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
My point is that the UK financial services industry - by and large although not universally - works prefer us to stay in the single market for financial services. They wish this because it avoids then incurring the triple costs of relocation, a worse regulatory environment, and the requirement to hold more capital*.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
Yes, but the electorate have two basic beliefs in relation to banking and the EU.
The bankers are unscrupulous and 'bankrupted' the country and the EU is an appalling organisation that is taking advantage of Britain.
At voting level, it's likely to look very bad for the government - paying to protect bankers (even if passed off as a bankers' levy) whilst letting the EU get away with whatever it wants.
I think losing billions of pounds of revenue from the financial services industry in the Uk would be worse but your mileage may vary.
There is an economy beyond financial services, and way beyond the EU. The Europeans make £100bn a year from us using it for goods.
Why shouldn't they pay?
If we want to conclude a free trade deal like CETA, then nobody would be paying anybody anything*. If we wish for firms in the UK to sell financial services products to entities in the EEA as if they were EEA-domiciled then the EU will extract a price.
Remember, our trade deficit is both a strength and a weakness. While it makes us attractive as a partner, it also makes our economy vulnerable to external shocks. It is us, not the EU, that is dependent on the kindness of strangers to pay the bills.
* Actually Canada will write a cheque to the EU for the costs associated with the administration of CETA, albeit a small one.
Though the German government is paying 1 point something on defence - I am not sure they have bought much with it. Their F125 frigates appear to be as powerless as the LCS. The German airforce was reported a few months ago as having only 6 typhoons servicable. I don't think they have replaced the melting rifle either.
I'm hoping it is the story about [famous politician] performing [moderated] on prostitutes who turned out to Russian strippers who were men on actual live horses.
I'm hoping it is the story about [famous politician] performing [moderated] on prostitutes who turned out to Russian strippers who were men on actual live horses.
But that surely happens to all of us? Doesn't it??
Though the German government is paying 1 point something on defence - I am not sure they have bought much with it. Their F125 frigates appear to be as powerless as the LCS. The German airforce was reported a few months ago as having only 6 typhoons servicable. I don't think they have replaced the melting rifle either.
They need to smarten up with what they buy, but the same could be said of most countries. Carriers with no planes escorted by ships with no anti-ship missiles for instance.
I'm hoping it is the story about [famous politician] performing [moderated] on prostitutes who turned out to Russian strippers who were men on actual live horses.
But that surely happens to all of us? Doesn't it??
Something similar happened to me when I arranged my mate's stag do.
Comments
On another point
Reasons to build the wall. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/17/mexican-mayor-arrested-hundreds-massacred-cooked-network-ovens-breitbart-expose/
It must be a great burden to bear the collective view of PB (-1 apparently).
So a lot of the real value in what was once the huge Motorola company still remains in US hands.
* Freescale, which merged with NXP, and is now being bought by Qualcomm.
** And made some damn nice phones like the original Moto X and Moto G.
If not, that would be one of the most ridiculously insane options ever put before a eurosceptic electorate.
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/799270889804222464
http://tinyurl.com/guqkczy
Rhetoric, blah blah, surrogate, blah blah, wait and see, blah blah.
If the British government needs to pay more to achieve this access than would otherwise be the case, then it seems only fair that those who benefit pick up at least a portion of this bill.
* As in, both their Uk subsidiary and their EU one would need sufficient levels of capital to withstand loses, and this would mean the firm as a whole needed to hold more capital.
This is generally held to be one of the "unfair" taxes that led to the Colonies violently seperating from the UK, aided by finance and troops from Britains great imperial rival. While the frogs suceeded in seperating the Angloshphere, the financial costs of doing so were a factor in bringing on the French Revolution.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin may well want to read their history so as to avoid repeating the mistake, or on the other hand may not...
In theory, that would change if there were a general election that spelled out the government’s terms and in which May won a mandate for them. That’s why, with the Tories enjoying robust poll leads over Labour, there is recurrent talk about an early election. But the Conservatives face an insurmountable problem. Even if there were no other impediments to an early election, such as the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, they cannot call one without an agreement on Brexit terms over which they are split. So, no election.
The government is increasingly paralysed over Brexit. There aren’t hundreds of Tory backbench zealots who want to turn their backs completely on an EU deal; but there are enough to make any such deal too divisive to risk
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/mps-hard-brexit-progressives-parliament
The bankers are unscrupulous and 'bankrupted' the country and the EU is an appalling organisation that is taking advantage of Britain.
At voting level, it's likely to look very bad for the government - paying to protect bankers (even if passed off as a bankers' levy) whilst letting the EU get away with whatever it wants.
Think of it like the reverse of giving Nissan subsidies.
No direct ECJ oversight over UK domestic law but we will be obliged to implement EU directives to into UK domestic law to comply with the treaties and the EU will have some compliance checking mechanism. That last bit is missing from the Swiss bilaterals and it exercises the EU no end. No passporting - our finance industry is too big a prize for other countries to pass up. If that's the case there will be limits on migration, but the EU will want to formalise a reciprocal set of limits the other way. It may be more an agreement to set a different policy rather than us doing whatever we feel like - while we are still in treaties with the EU. We stay in the Customs Union - otherwise the Nissan commitment comes unstuck. And then we get onto agriculture, which will dominate everything. The EU has a large trading surplus with us on agricultural products which it will want to continue, but the forum for those talks will largely be at the WTO where we need to negotiate our schedules with third parties. The EU will also be working their relationships.
The contributions bill will be set at a level that doesn't derail the deal.
Why shouldn't they pay?
It may well be that Germany may not want, or need to spend that much on defence. The rEU does have a GDP of 7 times Russia in PPP terms, so eaual sized forces would bankrupt Russia first.
Though Putin's troll farms and Wikileaks have demonstrated a lot of bang for their buck.
Though if everyone on PB left when they got a prediction wrong, there would be nearly no-one left, and the few that were would be insufferable!
Remember, our trade deficit is both a strength and a weakness. While it makes us attractive as a partner, it also makes our economy vulnerable to external shocks. It is us, not the EU, that is dependent on the kindness of strangers to pay the bills.
* Actually Canada will write a cheque to the EU for the costs associated with the administration of CETA, albeit a small one.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799372160523452421
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799374562710421504
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799374562710421504
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/three-mobile-cyber-hack--six-million-customers-private-data-at-r/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38018209
I know the Three mobile thing isn't the story as it is on the front page of the Telegraph front page, which has another story embargoed out
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799375781969465344
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799376387186561024
Must be a big story... surprised it hasn't leaked out on twitter given the number of papers with it (although maybe it has in some corners).
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799376387186561024
Is it just the previous super-embargo that's common knowledge expiring?
Latest poll: IFOP
http://www.la-croix.com/France/Politique/Primaire-Juppe-Sarkozy-Fillon-coude-coude-avant-1er-tour-2016-11-17-1300803980
Juppe 31 (-2) / Sarkozy 30 (=) / Fillon 27 (+7) - The changes are from last week.
Second round
Juppe 57 / Sarkozy 43
Fillon 63 / Sarkozy 37
Juppe 50 / Fillon 50
The dynamic stays the same (Juppe down, Sarkozy flat, Fillon up) and it seems that we are nowwithin the margins of error for the first round.
The debate tonight was a bit dull, not sure it will have changed strongly the momentum.
I'll get my coat...
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/799379381084819457
Remember we're all in the gutter...
(sorry for the tease!)
HONEST.
Btw red oaks...watched both seasons now...two thumbs up.