Despite the doom about Le Pen, the most likely scenario for 2017 is the re-election of Merkel, Fillon or Macron winning in France, and a positive renewal across Europe (except Britain which will still be navel-gazing about Brexit).
"Conservative media giant Breitbart News generated 300 million pageviews and 45 million unique visitors over the last 31 days.
“Breitbart News’ highly engaged community of readers seek first-in-class conservative news,” said Breitbart CEO and President Larry Solov. “And that’s exactly what we’ve given them.”
With plans for expansion to new international markets underway, Breitbart’s strength across social media continues to swell.
According to social media analytics leader NewsWhip, Breitbart maintains the number one political Twitter and Facebook pages in the world...
Not really those numbers and commentary don't add up. If its 45 million unique visitors then they're averaging just over 6 pageviews in a month each - hardly "highly engaged".
Or its a far smaller number of highly engaged people visiting from different devices/IP addresses etc so they are engaged but there's a lot less actual visitors.
Or its a very large number of visitors who've visited once or twice only ever, probably because someone else like you shared a link on a site or medium they actually do visit.
You can measure engagement by comments, low bounce rate, time spent on page, social shares etc., not just unique visits.
The EU under the influence of France tends towards the protectionist end of the spectrum.
That's an odd spectrum you have. Which real world entities are more pro free trade than the EU, as opposed to the hypothetical ones that must appear on your spectrum?
Despite the doom about Le Pen, the most likely scenario for 2017 is the re-election of Merkel, Fillon or Macron winning in France, and a positive renewal across Europe (except Britain which will still be navel-gazing about Brexit).
The polls were wrong in US and they will be wrong in Fr, says leading philosopher. Le Pen could easily win. People want theatre not truth and Le Pen gives good theatre.
Despite the doom about Le Pen, the most likely scenario for 2017 is the re-election of Merkel, Fillon or Macron winning in France, and a positive renewal across Europe (except Britain which will still be navel-gazing about Brexit).
The polls were wrong in US and they will be wrong in Fr, says leading philosopher. Le Pen could easily win. People want theatre not truth and Le Pen gives good theatre.
How did I guess it would be BHL? He'll say anything as long as it gets him on TV.
"Conservative media giant Breitbart News generated 300 million pageviews and 45 million unique visitors over the last 31 days.
“Breitbart News’ highly engaged community of readers seek first-in-class conservative news,” said Breitbart CEO and President Larry Solov. “And that’s exactly what we’ve given them.”
With plans for expansion to new international markets underway, Breitbart’s strength across social media continues to swell.
According to social media analytics leader NewsWhip, Breitbart maintains the number one political Twitter and Facebook pages in the world...
Not really those numbers and commentary don't add up. If its 45 million unique visitors then they're averaging just over 6 pageviews in a month each - hardly "highly engaged".
Or its a far smaller number of highly engaged people visiting from different devices/IP addresses etc so they are engaged but there's a lot less actual visitors.
Or its a very large number of visitors who've visited once or twice only ever, probably because someone else like you shared a link on a site or medium they actually do visit.
You can measure engagement by comments, low bounce rate, time spent on page, social shares etc., not just unique visits.
Absolutely and I'm sure if you do there may be a few thousand actively engaged people as opposed to the 45 million quoted.
I think it might be close to a 20% lead to No when all said and done.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
I think it might be close to a 20% lead to No when all said and done.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
Has not Renzi promised to resign if he loses the referendum? I am not wholly convinced that Italy ending up in political deadlock will be a good thing.
I think it might be close to a 20% lead to No when all said and done.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
Has not Renzi promised to resign if he loses the referendum? I am not wholly convinced that Italy ending up in political deadlock will be a good thing.
Renzi resigning is like Cameron resigning. The Italian President will select a new PM.
If the EU and its institutions are going to survive then Juncker and Verhofstadt have to be dumped. They can be pointed at by those who detest the commission and parliament as being unreasonable and vindictive. Safe pairs of hands need to be found.
On another note do the LD true believers on this forum really think that becoming a "one trick pony" party is going to improve their credibility?
No.
The EU under the influence of France tends towards the protectionist end of the spectrum.
As free traders, Lib Dems should be active supporters of leaving the EU customs union and arranging free trade deals acroos the world, instead of supporting protectionist EU trade barriers against outsiders.
So Lib Dem support for remain is undermining their own liberal free trade philosophy and foundation. No wonder people don't know what the Lib Dems stand for any more.
I'm not sure the LibDems ARE, or have ever been, Free Traders. The Liberal Party is, and has consistently opposed EU membership.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Despite the doom about Le Pen, the most likely scenario for 2017 is the re-election of Merkel, Fillon or Macron winning in France, and a positive renewal across Europe (except Britain which will still be navel-gazing about Brexit).
This seems somewhat optimistic. Exchanging social democrat for conservative rule in France would mean that the EU had dodged the fatal bullet - but that alone won't help to solve any of its existing problems.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
I think it might be close to a 20% lead to No when all said and done.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
In other words, checks and balances remain. Single chamber government seems dangerous to me, just as the US founding fathers thought.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
It is if you believe that 100% of Crown Estates should be national income.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Ironically under European law what you are proposing is illegal - probably also under modern human rights legislation generally. Hence the Greek Royal family was awarded everything that was taken - but then they were generous and only took back a fraction of it.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
Looks like they are having to host the Donald on a state visit next year.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
There was an interesting rumour back under Blair that Charley's plan for when the time came was pretty much that. End the civil list... then some lawyers for the government pointed out why there is a civil list.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Ironically under European law what you are proposing is illegal - probably also under modern human rights legislation generally. Hence the Greek Royal family was awarded everything that was taken - but then they were generous and only took back a fraction of it.
Lucky that we're leaving Europe then. A pension for time served seems appropriate, as the Greeks realised. They can retire from public life still fabulously wealthy by accident of birth and then Harry etc can get proper privacy unless they choose to work in public going forwards.
"Conservative media giant Breitbart News generated 300 million pageviews and 45 million unique visitors over the last 31 days.
“Breitbart News’ highly engaged community of readers seek first-in-class conservative news,” said Breitbart CEO and President Larry Solov. “And that’s exactly what we’ve given them.”
With plans for expansion to new international markets underway, Breitbart’s strength across social media continues to swell.
According to social media analytics leader NewsWhip, Breitbart maintains the number one political Twitter and Facebook pages in the world...
Navigating Breitbart is a pain in the backside - the pages take forever to load, are chocka with adverts and script - I frequently have to refresh them as they grind my browser to snail-like speed.
So unless you are really dedicated you will see the home page and possibly one article and then go to somewhere more user friendly - like The Guardian.
(That's not sarcasm BTW - I find the Guardian very easy to use and navigate - much better than the Mail (whose home page is about a mile long) or the Telegraph (no comments and now much of it inaccessible))
I think it might be close to a 20% lead to No when all said and done.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
In other words, checks and balances remain. Single chamber government seems dangerous to me, just as the US founding fathers thought.
Yup, and winners' bonuses have potentially gruesome unintended consequences.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
Looks like they are having to host the Donald on a state visit next year.
Just to remind the Donald - if you think you can do bling, think again!
What would be left? Greece is a basket case, Italy going the same way, the Visegrad bloc in open revolt against Brussels' diktat and multiculturalism. Nobody should discount the far left leading a coalition in Spain should the centre-right minority administration falter. None of the Nordic states are signed up for the Euro, other than Finland which is distant from the core, and the hard right is strong in Sweden and Denmark.
Your posited liberal bloc presently appears to consist of Germany, Austria and the Low Countries - and Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders all have thriving hard right nationalist movements. It doesn't amount to much.
They have hard-right nationalist movements but they're minorities. Liberal Germany is exceedingly bad-ass. A far-left-led coalition would still be liberal, it would be fine. Euro membership isn't required. So the EU would still be a strong liberal bloc, and the need for a strong liberal bloc would be much more obvious.
This all comes, ultimately, from the fact that European integration has grown too deep, too all-pervasive, and it has become sclerotic in the process. The EU is stuck halfway between a commonwealth of sovereign states (which is where it should've stayed) and a federation (which it seems unwilling and unable to become.) That makes it both acutely vulnerable and increasingly paranoid. It views almost every outside development as a threat to its own cohesion. And the more it reacts against the rest of the world, the more vulnerable and the more paranoid it becomes.
I don't think that's it, since you're getting much the same thing in the US.
The difference between the EU and the US is that the US was forged into a single nation by a war of independence followed by a civil war. It is also held together by transfers of 6-8% of GDP from richer parts of the US to the poorer parts through federal spending.
The EU has arisen as a political entity without that forging or the fund transfers - only about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred to the poorer eastern european and mediterranean states.
If the EU has a future it will need to increase those transfers or have an internal war of conquest. I suggest both are unlikely.
The EU resembles more and more a frightened little circle of wagons. It seems to be determined to treat Russia, China, the United States and the United Kingdom as various kinds of enemies all at once. That isn't sustainable. Something has to give.
If France elects Le Pen I think a smaller, tighter circle of wagons of the remaining liberal states would be the right response. And they'd be right to be frightened, as should everyone else.
Why on earth should we be frightened? What is she going to do, invade?
Well, France has nuclear weapons so she could certainly start a nuclear war with somebody. That somebody probably wouldn't be Britain or an EU member, but it wouldn't be good.
But the wider picture is that we are / would be seeing a repeat of the 1930s: Nationalistic governments, international institutions unraveling, lack of respect for human rights. Where that ends is with authoritarians crushing domestic dissent then going to war with each other.
There is no reason that the only outcome of the dissolution of a supranational entity back into its constituent nation states is the 1930s. Evolution is always building up and stripping down, but each cycle produces something unique and different.
The social environment now is so far removed from that which pertained in the 1930s that it is nigh on ridiculous to make your claim.
What would be left? Greece is a basket case, Italy going the same way, the Visegrad bloc in open revolt against Brussels' diktat and multiculturalism. Nobody should discount the far left leading a coalition in Spain should the centre-right minority administration falter. None of the Nordic states are signed up for the Euro, other than Finland which is distant from the core, and the hard right is strong in Sweden and Denmark.
Your posited liberal bloc presently appears to consist of Germany, Austria and the Low Countries - and Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders all have thriving hard right nationalist movements. It doesn't amount to much.
They have hard-right nationalist movements but they're minorities. Liberal Germany is exceedingly bad-ass. A far-left-led coalition would still be liberal, it would be fine. Euro membership isn't required. So the EU would still be a strong liberal bloc, and the need for a strong liberal bloc would be much more obvious.
This all comes, ultimately, from the fact that European integration has grown too deep, too all-pervasive, and it has become sclerotic in the process. The EU is stuck halfway between a commonwealth of sovereign states (which is where it should've stayed) and a federation (which it seems unwilling and unable to become.) That makes it both acutely vulnerable and increasingly paranoid. It views almost every outside development as a threat to its own cohesion. And the more it reacts against the rest of the world, the more vulnerable and the more paranoid it becomes.
I don't think that's it, since you're getting much the same thing in the US.
The difference between the EU and the US is that the US was forged into a single nation by a war of independence followed by a civil war. It is also held together by transfers of 6-8% of GDP from richer parts of the US to the poorer parts through federal spending.
The EU has arisen as a political entity without that forging or the fund transfers - only about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred to the poorer eastern european and mediterranean states.
If the EU has a future it will need to increase those transfers or have an internal war of conquest. I suggest both are unlikely.
They'll increase the transfers, but as in the US they'll be hidden behind other programs that voters generally support. The immediate ones are military/security and clean energy.
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
Yep, that's pretty much it. Basically HM pays a 75% management fee for the government's services in looking after her estates. I suspect she might have trouble reclaiming the underlying assets if she wanted to.
Interestingly (IIRC) each Monarch signs up to the deal on coronation. In theory Charles could end it...
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Actually, they are not.
They are the private estates of George III - the ones he owned as a private citizen. You'd have more luck arguing that the Duchy of Lancaster should be national property, and less of a case for the Duchy of Cornwall.
Properties like Windsor and Buck House are definitely state property.
What would be left? Greece is a basket case, Italy going the same way, the Visegrad bloc in open revolt against Brussels' diktat and multiculturalism. Nobody should discount the far left leading a coalition in Spain should the centre-right minority administration falter. None of the Nordic states are signed up for the Euro, other than Finland which is distant from the core, and the hard right is strong in Sweden and Denmark.
Your posited liberal bloc presently appears to consist of Germany, Austria and the Low Countries - and Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders all have thriving hard right nationalist movements. It doesn't amount to much.
They have hard-right nationalist movements but they're minorities. Liberal Germany is exceedingly bad-ass. A far-left-led coalition would still be liberal, it would be fine. Euro membership isn't required. So the EU would still be a strong liberal bloc, and the need for a strong liberal bloc would be much more obvious.
This all comes, ultimately, from the fact that European integration has grown too deep, too all-pervasive, and it has become sclerotic in the process. The EU is stuck halfway between a commonwealth of sovereign states (which is where it should've stayed) and a federation (which it seems unwilling and unable to become.) That makes it both acutely vulnerable and increasingly paranoid. It views almost every outside development as a threat to its own cohesion. And the more it reacts against the rest of the world, the more vulnerable and the more paranoid it becomes.
I don't think that's it, since you're getting much the same thing in the US.
The difference between the EU and the US is that the US was forged into a single nation by a war of independence followed by a civil war. It is also held together by transfers of 6-8% of GDP from richer parts of the US to the poorer parts through federal spending.
The EU has arisen as a political entity without that forging or the fund transfers - only about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred to the poorer eastern european and mediterranean states.
If the EU has a future it will need to increase those transfers or have an internal war of conquest. I suggest both are unlikely.
They'll increase the transfers, but as in the US they'll be hidden behind other programs that voters generally support. The immediate ones are military/security and clean energy.
I'm not sure the taxpayers in the richer northern EU countries will approve of subsidies to poorer EU countries of 12-16x the current level, however they are tarted up
Is Tony going to stand as a Labour MP? Or start his own political Party?
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
Morning GIN, all well with you
Yes Malc I'm very well thank you.
You OK?
Hale and Hearty GIN, though not much fun on here recently , just lots of bollox and brexit doom and gloom. Meanwhile we are going to spash out £500M fitting new boiler and rewiring teh richest woman in the world's house and yet another borefest from Jakie Rowling. Still smiling despite it though.
You know there are at least 3 richer women (off the top of my head) living in the UK alone? Let alone the rest of the world.
LOL, the irony of the obscenely rich
I'm well off but far from rich... main asset is my house and that is heavily mortgaged...
I doubt you have ever had to concern yourself with lack of cash Charles or access to it.
PS; Royal family , who despite having huge handouts every year and hundreds of millions in the bank , would rather milk the public poor rather than even chip in, it will take public humiliation for them to even consider getting over their untrammeled greed.
I'm sure the Royal Family would be happy to unwind the deal whereby the government keeps the Crown Estates income and the Royal Family doesn't get the Civil List any more.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Actually, they are not.
They are the private estates of George III - the ones he owned as a private citizen. You'd have more luck arguing that the Duchy of Lancaster should be national property, and less of a case for the Duchy of Cornwall.
Properties like Windsor and Buck House are definitely state property.
Actually they are not. They are the ones he inherited as sovereign from George II and can be traced back all the way to William the Conqueror.
Incidentally the monarchists here seem to have forgotten the flipside of why the Crown Estates were handed to Parliament in exchange for the Civil List. Until that was done the Crown Estates were used by the monarch to pay for the Civil Service, the military and other functions of government.
If the house of Windsor wants to terminate that arrangement, reclaim the Crown Estates, the costs of the civil service, the national debt and so on then it doesn't seem like taxpayers come out worst in that arrangement.
What would be left? Greece is a basket case, Italy going the same way, the Visegrad bloc in open revolt against Brussels' diktat and multiculturalism. Nobody should discount the far left leading a coalition in Spain should the centre-right minority administration falter. None of the Nordic states are signed up for the Euro, other than Finland which is distant from the core, and the hard right is strong in Sweden and Denmark.
Your posited liberal bloc presently appears to consist of Germany, Austria and the Low Countries - and Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders all have thriving hard right nationalist movements. It doesn't amount to much.
They have hard-right nationalist movements but they're minorities. Liberal Germany is exceedingly bad-ass. A far-left-led coalition would still be liberal, it would be fine. Euro membership isn't required. So the EU would still be a strong liberal bloc, and the need for a strong liberal bloc would be much more obvious.
This all comes, ultimately, from the fact that European integration has grown too deep, too all-pervasive, and it has become sclerotic in the process. The EU is stuck halfway between a commonwealth of sovereign states (which is where it should've stayed) and a federation (which it seems unwilling and unable to become.) That makes it both acutely vulnerable and increasingly paranoid. It views almost every outside development as a threat to its own cohesion. And the more it reacts against the rest of the world, the more vulnerable and the more paranoid it becomes.
I don't think that's it, since you're getting much the same thing in the US.
The difference between the EU and the US is that the US was forged into a single nation by a war of independence followed by a civil war. It is also held together by transfers of 6-8% of GDP from richer parts of the US to the poorer parts through federal spending.
The EU has arisen as a political entity without that forging or the fund transfers - only about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred to the poorer eastern european and mediterranean states.
If the EU has a future it will need to increase those transfers or have an internal war of conquest. I suggest both are unlikely.
They'll increase the transfers, but as in the US they'll be hidden behind other programs that voters generally support. The immediate ones are military/security and clean energy.
I was reading that in the basis of retiring old coal plants/ population density the cost benefits analysis suggests the rust belt mid west is one of the best places for the US to splurge money on solar and wind plants.
Crown Estates are national property in all but name. The French had a short, sharp solution for getting rid of those that had taken national property into their own name - we should let the Windsors keep their heads and a pension, but those estates should be nationalised and the Civil List terminated.
Actually, they are not.
They are the private estates of George III - the ones he owned as a private citizen. You'd have more luck arguing that the Duchy of Lancaster should be national property, and less of a case for the Duchy of Cornwall.
Properties like Windsor and Buck House are definitely state property.
Actually they are not. They are the ones he inherited as sovereign from George II and can be traced back all the way to William the Conqueror.
William the Conqueror owned them as a private citizen in the same way as the various feudal landlords did. His heirs and descendants would have the same relationship to the state as any private citizen who can trace their lineage back in the same way
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/20/leading-french-philosopher-marine-le-pen-may-win-election-as-peo/
The polls were wrong in US and they will be wrong in Fr, says leading philosopher. Le Pen could easily win. People want theatre not truth and Le Pen gives good theatre.
Of course, what this means is that Italy remains bicameral, and therefore - even if Five Star is victorious in the lower house - there will be a complete impasse as no one will have anything approaching a majority in the Senate.
It's amazing how boring politics has become.
We haven't had an unexpected upset in at least a week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38038174/the-owners-of-fabric-are-reported-to-be-in-talks-aimed-at-saving-the-venue
I read that the deal for Buck Palace effectively meant that the gov was reducing the tax rate on the Crown Estates from 85% to 75% for a few years. Hardly largesse.
https://twitter.com/patcondell/status/800293495948898308
""This is about more than Fabric - an entire way of life is under threat."
So unless you are really dedicated you will see the home page and possibly one article and then go to somewhere more user friendly - like The Guardian.
(That's not sarcasm BTW - I find the Guardian very easy to use and navigate - much better than the Mail (whose home page is about a mile long) or the Telegraph (no comments and now much of it inaccessible))
The EU has arisen as a political entity without that forging or the fund transfers - only about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred to the poorer eastern european and mediterranean states.
If the EU has a future it will need to increase those transfers or have an internal war of conquest. I suggest both are unlikely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNhz6a1PKWY
It's just that upsets have become expected.
The social environment now is so far removed from that which pertained in the 1930s that it is nigh on ridiculous to make your claim.
Interestingly (IIRC) each Monarch signs up to the deal on coronation. In theory Charles could end it...
They are the private estates of George III - the ones he owned as a private citizen. You'd have more luck arguing that the Duchy of Lancaster should be national property, and less of a case for the Duchy of Cornwall.
Properties like Windsor and Buck House are definitely state property.
If the house of Windsor wants to terminate that arrangement, reclaim the Crown Estates, the costs of the civil service, the national debt and so on then it doesn't seem like taxpayers come out worst in that arrangement.
new thread