A straw in the Brexit wind today. The UK government is set to announce whether the UK will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If we say we will, then it probably indicates an overall soft-Brexit approach, whatever the rhetoric. If it says we won't, then hard Brext is very much on the cards.
I am rather confused by this whole story. Not to downplay it, but unlike saville et al., the guy has been convicted 3 times and there are now things like CRB checks. The main 2-3 people being interviewed were part of the original criminal trial and it was reported widely in the press at the time ( although the victims were obviously given anonymity).
I think my question is why now has this story been relit?
CRB check.. absolutely not worth the paper they are printed on.. How does no criminal record(not been caught) protect against a paedophile?
I think the CRB has gone and been replaced by some other name, but I think its the same thing in principle.
Thanks to Chris from Paris for his informative, forensic and neutral briefings - they're really helpful. An article by him on the elections at some point would be very welcome.
Seconded absolutely - I think Chris has been our Presidential guide since before 2007!
Many thanks to both of you - it'always nice to be able to contribute. I will regularly post poll results when I get them . If OGH is interested I could try to do something on the left-wing primary after the list of candidates is clarified (probably not before next week anyway).
He will be very much interested in running pieces from you.
Mr. Eagles, yes, it is [currency union being directly related to lender of last resort].
A formal currency union would mean the British taxpayer would end up on the hook if Scottish financial institutions entered difficulty. Who supervised (or set) the regulations is neither here nor there.
Mr. Eagles, yes, it is [currency union being directly related to lender of last resort].
A formal currency union would mean the British taxpayer would end up on the hook if Scottish financial institutions entered difficulty. Who supervised (or set) the regulations is neither here nor there.
So how about when he intervened about contingency planning for a run on Scottish banks if Scotland voted yes.
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
Mr. Eagles, if that was post-vote but pre-departure then the 'Scottish' banks would legally be British ones, and it was a matter for the Bank of England as lender of last resort.
I am rather confused by this whole story. Not to downplay it, but unlike saville et al., the guy has been convicted 3 times and there are now things like CRB checks. The main 2-3 people being interviewed were part of the original criminal trial and it was reported widely in the press at the time ( although the victims were obviously given anonymity).
I think my question is why now has this story been relit?
CRB check.. absolutely not worth the paper they are printed on.. How does no criminal record(not been caught) protect against a paedophile?
I think the CRB has gone and been replaced by some other name, but I think its the same thing in principle.
The major intervention Carney made was on currency. If he wants to comment on the UK not joining the eurozone if we leave the EU, that's fine.
And I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with a transitional period, or perhaps even staying in the single market. I'm saying policy is a matter for politicians, and that if Carney wants to influence matters beyond his job he can stand for election.
Actually Carney was reasonably balanced during the Indyref, despite Unionists' best efforts to recruit his every statement to 'Project Fear, the Awakening'. I'm sure that's another black mark for him with the Brexityoons. The unelected Treasury otoh..
Mr. Eagles, if that was post-vote but pre-departure then the 'Scottish' banks would legally be British ones, and it was a matter for the Bank of England as lender of last resort.
The major intervention Carney made was on currency. If he wants to comment on the UK not joining the eurozone if we leave the EU, that's fine.
And I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with a transitional period, or perhaps even staying in the single market. I'm saying policy is a matter for politicians, and that if Carney wants to influence matters beyond his job he can stand for election.
Actually Carney was reasonably balanced during the Indyref, despite Unionists' best efforts to recruit his every statement to 'Project Fear, the Awakening'. I'm sure that's another black mark for him with the Brexityoons. The unelected Treasury otoh..
I had some sympathy for the JRM argument that Carney should not have made public statements on Brexit impact... particularly given what we would negotiate was and still is so uncertain.
If he has been encouraging businesses to lobby for a particular policy position - i.e. soft Brexit - then I think that is definitely beyond his remit and out of order.
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
There's a fine line, isn't there?
I must admit, I think Carney is being held to a different standard to other Central Bank heads who seem to be allowed a huge amount of latitude to criticise government policy. If he wishes to campaign for a two year transitional period, that would seem to be well within the remit of the Bank of England charter (see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf).
In the past, Governors have been allowed to criticise the government of the day as regards their decisions (Gordon Richardson was a constant public thorn in the side of Wilson and Callaghan - making it very clear when he thought the government ).
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
There's a fine line, isn't there?
I must admit, I think Carney is being held to a different standard to other Central Bank heads who seem to be allowed a huge amount of latitude to criticise government policy. If he wishes to campaign for a two year transitional period, that would seem to be well within the remit of the Bank of England charter (see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf).
In the past, Governors have been allowed to criticise the government of the day as regards their decisions (Gordon Richardson was a constant public thorn in the side of Wilson and Callaghan - making it very clear when he thought the government ).
Interestingly, the Charter of the Bank is actually very clear that it the Bank is allowed to campaign for whatever it wants in the interests of the objectives of "price stability... growth and employment", but that the government can over-rule it by "The Treasury may by notice in writing to the Bank specify... what the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government is to be taken to be."
Edit to add: it is therefore the duty of HMG to tell the bank that it is not in favour of a transitional arrangement.
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
There's a fine line, isn't there?
I must admit, I think Carney is being held to a different standard to other Central Bank heads who seem to be allowed a huge amount of latitude to criticise government policy. If he wishes to campaign for a two year transitional period, that would seem to be well within the remit of the Bank of England charter (see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf).
In the past, Governors have been allowed to criticise the government of the day as regards their decisions (Gordon Richardson was a constant public thorn in the side of Wilson and Callaghan - making it very clear when he thought the government ).
Interestingly, the Charter of the Bank is actually very clear that it the Bank is allowed to campaign for whatever it wants in the interests of the objectives of "price stability... growth and employment", but that the government can over-rule it by "The Treasury may by notice in writing to the Bank specify... what the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government is to be taken to be."
Edit to add: it is therefore the duty of HMG to tell the bank that it is not in favour of a transitional arrangement.
Can HMG just tell the Bank to shut up for a bit? Like "our current economic policy is to determine, in the coming months, what the future policy is going to be"
Mr. Eagles, if Carney wants to comment on whether we'll join the euro or not upon leaving the EU he's welcome to do so. Currency, inflation and interest rates are all in his area.
Other Central Bank governors, Kuroda in Japan, Yellen in the US, for example, seem allowed to make speeches specifically about economic policy, and even to be very critical of the government of the day.
I guess the question is, do we want an independent central bank or not? It's OK to say 'no', but then we should give up the pretence and allow the Chancellor to take over monetary policy again.
Isn't there an awfully big difference between an independent central bank saying that we probably need a transitory scheme while negotiations are continuing (to avoid a sharp shock) and actively campaigning for such a transitory scheme.
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
There's a fine line, isn't there?
I must admit, I think Carney is being held to a different standard to other Central Bank heads who seem to be allowed a huge amount of latitude to criticise government policy. If he wishes to campaign for a two year transitional period, that would seem to be well within the remit of the Bank of England charter (see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf).
In the past, Governors have been allowed to criticise the government of the day as regards their decisions (Gordon Richardson was a constant public thorn in the side of Wilson and Callaghan - making it very clear when he thought the government ).
Interestingly, the Charter of the Bank is actually very clear that it the Bank is allowed to campaign for whatever it wants in the interests of the objectives of "price stability... growth and employment", but that the government can over-rule it by "The Treasury may by notice in writing to the Bank specify... what the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government is to be taken to be."
Edit to add: it is therefore the duty of HMG to tell the bank that it is not in favour of a transitional arrangement.
This is the only mention of growth and stability that I can search for in the document you provided:
'to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government, including its objectives for growth and employment.'
A straw in the Brexit wind today. The UK government is set to announce whether the UK will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If we say we will, then it probably indicates an overall soft-Brexit approach, whatever the rhetoric. If it says we won't, then hard Brext is very much on the cards.
Comments
What would the mechanism for withdrawal from this agreement be?
Could it simply be added to the Great Repeal bill planned?
I think the CRB has gone and been replaced by some other name, but I think its the same thing in principle.
A formal currency union would mean the British taxpayer would end up on the hook if Scottish financial institutions entered difficulty. Who supervised (or set) the regulations is neither here nor there.
Where was your outrage ?
I think its the campaigning and lobbying that people would object to not the statement of opinion.
Of course, if you really want to read more about domestic interference in a nation's governance, you should read my excellent new book, Kingdom Asunder: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/
https://twitter.com/3pSteve/status/801159330057818112
Mr. Divvie, I agree. The Civil Service sometimes seems intent to determine or influence rather than implement policy.
If he has been encouraging businesses to lobby for a particular policy position - i.e. soft Brexit - then I think that is definitely beyond his remit and out of order.
I must admit, I think Carney is being held to a different standard to other Central Bank heads who seem to be allowed a huge amount of latitude to criticise government policy. If he wishes to campaign for a two year transitional period, that would seem to be well within the remit of the Bank of England charter (see: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1998act.pdf).
In the past, Governors have been allowed to criticise the government of the day as regards their decisions (Gordon Richardson was a constant public thorn in the side of Wilson and Callaghan - making it very clear when he thought the government ).
Edit to add: it is therefore the duty of HMG to tell the bank that it is not in favour of a transitional arrangement.
I think it's up for negotiation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3976396/Footage-Donald-Trump-cursing-golf-course-employee-Scotland-boasting-getting-rid-nearby-houses-emerges.html
'to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government,
including its objectives for growth and employment.'
Seems like you found something different?
NEW THREAD
I posted a blog link yesterday - don't know if you saw it - which seemed to set out the facts pretty well (withot advocating a course of action).
Don't have the link but it was on brexitcentral.com. would be interested in your perspectives