The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Mortgage interest tax relief would be my preferred stimulus measure.
Interesting - and very Thatcherite (in the positive sense).Would certainly shake up the German housing market.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Mortgage interest tax relief would be my preferred stimulus measure.
Interesting - and very Thatcherite (in the positive sense).Would certainly shake up the German housing market.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
Barbarossa would have worked had the Soviet Union just collapsed following its launch, as the Germans expected it to.
But it didn't, and the Wehrmacht was neither large enough, nor mechanised enough, to win a protracted conflict despite its professionalism and tactical skill.
And neither was the German economy mobilised for total war either.
"Barbarossa would have worked had the Soviet Union just collapsed following its launch, as the Germans expected it to."
Or as Hitler expected it to (not wholly without justification, given Stalin's purges, it has to be said). However, it would *only* have worked had the Soviet Union collapsed following the invasion, given everything else (it might have worked under any number of other scenarios too - what the Russians endured was phenomenal - but we shouldn't change too many facts to suit an outcome).
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
If it was R4, yes. When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
I completely agree. The other big benefit of having a proper system is that even if it only has an impact at the margins, it does a huge amount to change the perception of being a free-for-all soft-touch country, and worse - being so at the diktat of Brussels.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
I'm an Omega fan - Constellation - used to like Longines. Never keen on Rolex - too big.
I have my Dad's Omega Seamaster, it's a nice simple looking watch with no toggles, numbers or date, but with a sweep second hand. I may get around to getting a replacement strap at some stage.
Not unless he wants a copyright war with China. (Incidentally you can now buy in this country incredibly cheap and useless Chinese pickups branded Great Wall).
I hadn't realised he thought "media" was singular. He would never have been elected if that had come out during the campaign.
Most people say media when the are referring to the single medium of print journalism.
Copeland council's Labour group leader Lena Hogg, who voted for Mr Corbyn in his successful leadership campaigns, hoped he would accept nuclear was popular locally. Pro-nukes Mrs Hogg told the Mirror: “We have got it and it's staying and people are quite happy about the fact we have had it since 1952. “It doesn't matter what people feel about it, it's not going anywhere.” Asked about suggestions he could be “sidelined” in the campaign, she added: “I really can't see anybody concentrating on anything that Jeremy Corbyn does or says.”
Local Labour councillor Bill Kirkbride believed Cumbria would be “poverty-stricken” without the nuclear industry. “Provided Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say anything negative we are all right,” he said. “ Labour Party policy regarding nuclear is written in big, luminous letters.” He added: “What Jeremy has to say on the price of cheese – well, silence is golden.”
Just imagine the fun of trying that approach in a general election when Corbyn will be front and centre.
Whether Leadsom received a standing ovation from the room or was pelted with rotten tomatoes, is window dressing, and as you know, has nothing to do with *ahem* the price of eggs.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
I don't see why having bureaucratic systems such as ID cards is superior.
Sure, we could gut our welfare system and NHS to discourage immigration but why the hell should we? Why not say that only those (non-British) who have contributed to a country for a minimum period - say, 5 years - can take out of the system? That would both discourage non-beneficial migration but would also seem fair in the sense that it would eliminate the perception of people turning up and free-riding on the contributions of others. But of course EU law would not permit such discrimination. And this is in effect saying that British citizens are no more special in their own country than others. At some level I think a lot of people found that unacceptable.
"Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.
It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.
That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.
Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
Whose truth ?
Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
Agreed, but asking 'Whose truth?' as AlsoIndigo did leads one to think that maybe anybody's 'truth' is as valuable as anybody else's. I don't accept that.
I don't either, but what expert advisers supply are opinions and judgements. And to say the decision makers don't listen to the truth is usually just whinging. Calling them short-termist would be more to the point. The more intelligent ones know what they are.
It's true that you can't argue logically against the existence of absolute truth, but logic is conscious-mental and necessarily linguistic, and there are some truths that cannot be proved logically. Even logicians have recognised this, since Gödel proved it , although many had understood it, and knew it was true, for much longer. (Ask any woman!)
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Finland has universal healthcare and has just introduced a universaral basic income
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Mortgage interest tax relief would be my preferred stimulus measure.
Interesting - and very Thatcherite (in the positive sense).Would certainly shake up the German housing market.
Why do the Germans need a housing bubble ?
Their economy looks very well balanced to me.
The discussion was about potential responses to a Brexit recession.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
Barbarossa would have worked had the Soviet Union just collapsed following its launch, as the Germans expected it to.
But it didn't, and the Wehrmacht was neither large enough, nor mechanised enough, to win a protracted conflict despite its professionalism and tactical skill.
And neither was the German economy mobilised for total war either.
The German logistics chain really struggled too. I can't quite remember how many types of trucks they used for example but it was staggering. No hope in hell of getting spares to where they were needed, even if they had them.
That problem was made worse as they used up stocks of captured vehicles
The comments by Fox about bombing are also pertinent but the biggest impact of the bombing war came when (i) oil was targeted properly and (ii) Significant amounts of U.S fighters were giving license to basically shoot the hell out of anything that moved and they also hit fighter bases.
German fighter pilots were by 44 impacted severely by lack of safe areas to train , lack of oil and the need to get them to units as soon as possible. Again, I know they cut training hours needed before going to operational units but can't recall how low it went - Avery's "the bombing war" is a very good read btw.
The German decision not to switch to a war economy until later in war also hurt them.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
In your case I was thinking more of your legendary arguments about the impartiality of the bbc.
As opposed to the entirely disinterested arguments of those on the left and right who claim that it is biased, of course :-D
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Finland has universal healthcare and has just introduced a universaral basic income
But it's cold there and no one speaks Finnish. It's easy to accomplish these policies within a vacuum like Finland even with free movement. To do it in a country like the UK would be impossible within a free movement zone.
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
If it was R4, yes. When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
I feel you're underselling the majesty [sic] of Sammy Wilson's quote.
'They are poofs. I don't care if they are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts.'
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
...after we triggered Article 50, right?
No.
Cameron and Osborne predicted disaster would happen immediately after a Leave vote:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
I'm an Omega fan - Constellation - used to like Longines. Never keen on Rolex - too big.
I have my Dad's Omega Seamaster, it's a nice simple looking watch with no toggles, numbers or date, but with a sweep second hand. I may get around to getting a replacement strap at some stage.
I haven't worn a watch in years. On the rare occasions when I feel the need for male jewellery, cufflinks and studs suffice. Should Apple ever provide sufficient functionality to their effort, I might reconsider.
Neither triggering A50 or actually leaving the EU were necessary - the vote alone would cause a deep recession according to Cameron and Osborne.
That's bollocks, and you know it.
Who said this, in February?
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
The Tories are actually 2% higher than the CDU with yougov even on that poll and the Afd are higher than both the LDs and UKIP on 15%
In the general I would expect a decent chunk of the AfD figure to come home to Mutti.
It all depends on how strong AfD performs at the GE and whether the FDP again fail to achieve the 5% threshold. I expect a result close to the following (with parties failing to reach 5% excluded): CDU (with CSU) 42%, AfD 22%, SDP 22%, Green 7%, Red 7%. The only possible middle of the road coalition would be CDU/SDP, assuming the Reds and AfD are "beyond the pale". Any further terrorist atrocity before the GE would assist the AfD.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Finland has universal healthcare and has just introduced a universaral basic income
But it's cold there and no one speaks Finnish. It's easy to accomplish these policies within a vacuum like Finland even with free movement. To do it in a country like the UK would be impossible within a free movement zone.
I know they are famously taciturn, but surely some speak Finnish from time to time ?
Whether Leadsom received a standing ovation from the room or was pelted with rotten tomatoes, is window dressing, and as you know, has nothing to do with *ahem* the price of eggs.
La Leadsom said: "We will be consulting in the near future on exactly the shape of future farm and agriculture support."
Which ties in with my various comments about us being in the industry consultation phase. Quite how anyone, Guido or anyone else, knows what the outcome of those consultations will be, nor how we will then achieve what we have decided we want, is beyond me. I do know, however, that time is tight.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Finland has universal healthcare and has just introduced a universaral basic income
But it's cold there and no one speaks Finnish. It's easy to accomplish these policies within a vacuum like Finland even with free movement. To do it in a country like the UK would be impossible within a free movement zone.
Pretty cold here at the moment too but if and when the UK restricts free movement will be interesting to see how the Finns, French and Germans etc react to the extra Poles, Latvians and Albanians who will be heading their way rather than over the Channel
"Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.
It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.
That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.
Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
Whose truth ?
Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
Agreed, but asking 'Whose truth?' as AlsoIndigo did leads one to think that maybe anybody's 'truth' is as valuable as anybody else's. I don't accept that.
I don't either, but what expert advisers supply are opinions and judgements. And to say the decision makers don't listen to the truth is usually just whinging. Calling them short-termist would be more to the point. The more intelligent ones know what they are.
It's true that you can't argue logically against the existence of absolute truth, but logic is conscious-mental and necessarily linguistic, and there are some truths that cannot be proved logically. Even logicians have recognised this, since Gödel proved it , although many had understood it, and knew it was true, for much longer. (Ask any woman!)
No. What Gödel showed was that for any given axiomatised logical or mathematical system there would be correct propositions which could not be proved or disproved within that system. A very different thing.
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
If it was R4, yes. When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
I feel you're underselling the majesty [sic] of Sammy Wilson's quote.
'They are poofs. I don't care if they are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts.'
I was thinking of the delicate constitutions of so many PBers. The quote is from the 90s, I'm sure Sammy is quite the metropolitan nowadays.
The Tories are actually 2% higher than the CDU with yougov even on that poll and the Afd are higher than both the LDs and UKIP on 15%
In the general I would expect a decent chunk of the AfD figure to come home to Mutti.
It all depends on how strong AfD performs at the GE and whether the FDP again fail to achieve the 5% threshold. I expect a result close to the following (with parties failing to reach 5% excluded): CDU (with CSU) 42%, AfD 22%, SDP 22%, Green 7%, Red 7%. The only possible middle of the road coalition would be CDU/SDP, assuming the Reds and AfD are "beyond the pale". Any further terrorist atrocity before the GE would assist the AfD.
The SDP really don't want another grand coalition, but if that were the result they'd have no choice.
My view at this point is that AfD will be well behind the SDP and that the FDP will make the cut this time ultimately leading to the first Jamaica coalition and Germany massively investing in green technology.
It's true that you can't argue logically against the existence of absolute truth, but logic is conscious-mental and necessarily linguistic, and there are some truths that cannot be proved logically. Even logicians have recognised this, since Gödel proved it , although many had understood it, and knew it was true, for much longer. (Ask any woman!)
No. What Gödel showed was that for any given axiomatised logical or mathematical system there would be correct propositions which could not be proved or disproved within that system. A very different thing.
How is it different? "Correct propositions" are a kind of truth, and all logic is based on axioms. My formulation just points up that what he proved was a case of a wider truth.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Finland has universal healthcare and has just introduced a universaral basic income
But it's cold there and no one speaks Finnish. It's easy to accomplish these policies within a vacuum like Finland even with free movement. To do it in a country like the UK would be impossible within a free movement zone.
I know they are famously taciturn, but surely some speak Finnish from time to time ?
The only Finnish joke: when a Finn talks to you, he looks at his feet. When an outgoing extrovert Finn talks to you, he looks at your feet.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
I went shopping in a German border town, Lörrach, and they were pretty friendly there but I guess they are catering for rich Swiss consumers so they have to be.
The shops in Frankfurt and Munich have been fine - helpful assistants, chatty without being tiresomely pushy. Perhaps it depends what one wants - the American hi-I'm-Cindy-here-to-help-you style irritates me. Or on being willing to talk German?
Where do people think the most helpful and friendly assistants tend to be found? Venice was pretty good recently - I remember a girl selling me a shirt who was quite openly thrilled that she'd guessed the size right. Britain is reasonably OK now, after being pretty bad in living memory.
I have always found Germans to be very polite and happy to serve, but then I am one of the few people who has never really encountered any trouble in France, so maybe I am just lucky. That said, I suspect that a lot of what we consider to be rudeness might be down to language and cultural differences.
I lived in Aachen for 10 years and found the customer service to be generally fantastic. German shop assistants tended to be much more knowledgeable about the products on offer than their UK counterparts, and they were usually very happy to give good advice. In general, Germans tend to see their jobs - even the lower end ones such as shop assistants - as part of their personal identity rather than simply as a means of making money.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Surely that's the problem ? While government is keen on reducing the headline figures, underlying philosophy or even principles appear to have been given little or no thought. What we've seen over the years is a raft of piecemeal ad hoc policies.
Our system behind permanent residence is a good example of this - the public are largely completely ignorant of the rules which are changed on a regular basis with little fanfare. Those who have been here the longest often have the greatest difficulty in navigating the system (for example documenting unbroken residence is fairly easy if you've been here five years; quite difficult if it's been three decades.)
I have my Dad's Omega Seamaster, it's a nice simple looking watch with no toggles, numbers or date, but with a sweep second hand. I may get around to getting a replacement strap at some stage.
I have a 40-year-old manual Omega which still keeps reasonably good time, and have occasionally thoght about selling it - no idea where to go for that, though,or whether it's worth anything. There's no brand name - Seamaster or whatever - and I think my mum simply bought it in Switzerland as a boirthday present.
The people who irritate me are the ones who make a point of not wearing a watch, in a lofty I'm-modern way, and then frequently ask you the time.
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
...after we triggered Article 50, right?
No.
Cameron and Osborne predicted disaster would happen immediately after a Leave vote:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
If it was R4, yes. When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
I feel you're underselling the majesty [sic] of Sammy Wilson's quote.
'They are poofs. I don't care if they are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts.'
I was thinking of the delicate constitutions of so many PBers. The quote is from the 90s, I'm sure Sammy is quite the metropolitan nowadays.
If that metropolis is Raqqa.
Speaking of which, I believe ISIS' goose is starting to smell quite roasty. I was entirely wrong last year when I seriously underestimated their sticking power (though I think right when I said that I felt the US agencies were helping them indirectly whether by accident or design, and imo that has continued), but now you have them fighting the Kurds, the Iraqis, the US, Russia, the Syrians, the Iranians, and Hezbollah, and now the Turks, who earlier on in this conflict were fencing their oil and calling for ISIS embassies. They're still capable of acts of total desperation and will be very hard to finally get rid of, but as their territory shrinks as it must, they will be less attractive to prospective fighters.
Syria now is about the Kurds gaining the maximum territory before peace talks for bargaining power, the Syrians and their allies trying to take back territory from the rebel groups not listed in the ceasefire, and the Turks desperate to stop a Kurdish state on their doorstep, and willing to deal with Assad to stop it. Trump I guess must be cordially invited to mop up some of ISIS for the home crowd.
The Tories are actually 2% higher than the CDU with yougov even on that poll and the Afd are higher than both the LDs and UKIP on 15%
In the general I would expect a decent chunk of the AfD figure to come home to Mutti.
It all depends on how strong AfD performs at the GE and whether the FDP again fail to achieve the 5% threshold. I expect a result close to the following (with parties failing to reach 5% excluded): CDU (with CSU) 42%, AfD 22%, SDP 22%, Green 7%, Red 7%. The only possible middle of the road coalition would be CDU/SDP, assuming the Reds and AfD are "beyond the pale". Any further terrorist atrocity before the GE would assist the AfD.
The SDP really don't want another grand coalition, but if that were the result they'd have no choice.
My view at this point is that AfD will be well behind the SDP and that the FDP will make the cut this time ultimately leading to the first Jamaica coalition and Germany massively investing in green technology.
The AfD won't do as well as they might hope without a charismatic F....r, but I do expect them to reach 20% (once parties that fail to reach the 5% threshold are excluded). The French are lucky that they have 2-stage elections, so charismatic radicals are much less likely to progress in the 2nd round.
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
In an interview a couple of nights ago she put the reaction to it down to her being a woman. I'd suggest incompetence - she rarely gives a hint of being terribly sharp.
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
If it was R4, yes. When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
I feel you're underselling the majesty [sic] of Sammy Wilson's quote.
'They are poofs. I don't care if they are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts.'
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
The German government did not adopt a war economy until 1942, and while equipment was good it was over complex, too many competing designs and hard to maintain. It was Speer who ramped up and standardised production, which for tanks and planes peaked in late 44 despite the massive allied bombing campaign.
The British were on a war economy from the start, so we ended the Battle of Britain with more planes than we started with, while the Luftwaffe was heavily depleted. Blitzkrieg was defeated by the attrition and industrial war, both in the Battle of Britain and in Barbarossa.
The other factor was human. The Germans started the war with many skilled pilots and tank commanders, but the casualties in these technical areas were particularly heavy and difficult to replace, in both East and West.
The Nazis gambled on a knock out blow. Both the British Empire and USSR prevailed by remaining standing despite major blows, and allowing their opponent to be exhausted. Much the same is how the Yanks prevailed in the Pacific.
The Tortoise and the Hare writ very large.
On the subject of the Yanks in the Pacific, I've just watched the Mel Gibson-directed Hacksaw Ridge, a true story of a Conscientious Objector who won America's highest gallantry medal - despite refusing to ever pick up a weapon. Perhaps a little over-long, but well worth a view. It does show the insane brutality of the fighting, much of it hand-to-hand, through the Pacific Islands. Watch it to the very end, too.
I doubt the Japanese will be flocking to see it though. It is suggested the Japanese snipers used the medics' Red Cross as a target, going for them as a priority.
Neither triggering A50 or actually leaving the EU were necessary - the vote alone would cause a deep recession according to Cameron and Osborne.
That's bollocks, and you know it.
Who said this, in February?
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Stop digging the hole deeper Scott.
Cameron and Osborne wrote on 22 May:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
They make no reference to A50.
The recession they predicted was to happen immediately upon a Leave vote and was irrespective of any other action:
' Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
UNDER ALL SCENARIOS
They predicted a recession would happen UNDER ALL SCENARIOS.
Comments
Their economy looks very well balanced to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38530855
Or as Hitler expected it to (not wholly without justification, given Stalin's purges, it has to be said). However, it would *only* have worked had the Soviet Union collapsed following the invasion, given everything else (it might have worked under any number of other scenarios too - what the Russians endured was phenomenal - but we shouldn't change too many facts to suit an outcome).
And they'd have still needed warm coats.
When Sammy 'they are poofs' Wilson is your last line of defence, you're deep in it.
Labour are ducked....
Sure, we could gut our welfare system and NHS to discourage immigration but why the hell should we? Why not say that only those (non-British) who have contributed to a country for a minimum period - say, 5 years - can take out of the system? That would both discourage non-beneficial migration but would also seem fair in the sense that it would eliminate the perception of people turning up and free-riding on the contributions of others. But of course EU law would not permit such discrimination. And this is in effect saying that British citizens are no more special in their own country than others. At some level I think a lot of people found that unacceptable.
It's true that you can't argue logically against the existence of absolute truth, but logic is conscious-mental and necessarily linguistic, and there are some truths that cannot be proved logically. Even logicians have recognised this, since Gödel proved it
That problem was made worse as they used up stocks of captured vehicles
The comments by Fox about bombing are also pertinent but the biggest impact of the bombing war came when (i) oil was targeted properly and (ii) Significant amounts of U.S fighters were giving license to basically shoot the hell out of anything that moved and they also hit fighter bases.
German fighter pilots were by 44 impacted severely by lack of safe areas to train , lack of oil and the need to get them to units as soon as possible. Again, I know they cut training hours needed before going to operational units but can't recall how low it went - Avery's "the bombing war" is a very good read btw.
The German decision not to switch to a war economy until later in war also hurt them.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/817358268712493056
'They are poofs. I don't care if they are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts.'
Cameron and Osborne predicted disaster would happen immediately after a Leave vote:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
Neither triggering A50 or actually leaving the EU were necessary - the vote alone would cause a deep recession according to Cameron and Osborne.
Should Apple ever provide sufficient functionality to their effort, I might reconsider.
Who said this, in February?
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Which ties in with my various comments about us being in the industry consultation phase. Quite how anyone, Guido or anyone else, knows what the outcome of those consultations will be, nor how we will then achieve what we have decided we want, is beyond me. I do know, however, that time is tight.
The quote is from the 90s, I'm sure Sammy is quite the metropolitan nowadays.
If that metropolis is Raqqa.
My view at this point is that AfD will be well behind the SDP and that the FDP will make the cut this time ultimately leading to the first Jamaica coalition and Germany massively investing in green technology.
NEW THREAD
Our system behind permanent residence is a good example of this - the public are largely completely ignorant of the rules which are changed on a regular basis with little fanfare. Those who have been here the longest often have the greatest difficulty in navigating the system (for example documenting unbroken residence is fairly easy if you've been here five years; quite difficult if it's been three decades.)
The people who irritate me are the ones who make a point of not wearing a watch, in a lofty I'm-modern way, and then frequently ask you the time.
Syria now is about the Kurds gaining the maximum territory before peace talks for bargaining power, the Syrians and their allies trying to take back territory from the rebel groups not listed in the ceasefire, and the Turks desperate to stop a Kurdish state on their doorstep, and willing to deal with Assad to stop it. Trump I guess must be cordially invited to mop up some of ISIS for the home crowd.
I doubt the Japanese will be flocking to see it though. It is suggested the Japanese snipers used the medics' Red Cross as a target, going for them as a priority.
Cameron and Osborne wrote on 22 May:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
They make no reference to A50.
The recession they predicted was to happen immediately upon a Leave vote and was irrespective of any other action:
' Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
UNDER ALL SCENARIOS
They predicted a recession would happen UNDER ALL SCENARIOS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/