'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?
Right to leave 47%
Wrong to leave 43%'
Hardly the enthusiastic embrace of Leave by pragmatic Remainers that's touted on here.
Otoh in Scotland it's 30-59 which suggests the will of the Scots is fairly settled.
They should have asked people in Scotland
"Do you think unrestricted immigration to Scotland from Romania, Bulgaria and Poland is a price worth paying for Scotland to continue to be able to send 10% of its exports outside of Britain to countries in the EU?"
Or an equally unbiased question:
"Do you think giving up a single market of 500m people is a price worth paying to give Westminster to ability to sign its own trade deal with Burundi?"
We will still trade with the EU together with many trade deals Worldwide
Mr. Rog, they had planned to end SG-1 after the eighth series, with the two-parter (or maybe it was a TV film, I forget). Then they ended up with two more series before being surprised that the 10th would be the last, so they had to cobble together an ending and then had two TV films to round things off. Little bit stop-start.
Universe was a good idea but half the characters were forgettable the sombre tone really didn't match SG-1 (or the even lighter Atlantis). I think if it had been set in a different sci-fi, er, universe it would've been rather better.
I'd love to see a decent sci fi series/film where everything isn't in imminent danger of breaking down or running out of power. Just a slow build up of improving technology would be good. That's where Andromeda failed for me. Brilliant concept but nothing really worked properly
"To be a success outside the single market, to be attractive to businesses and to investment, we would need to be a European offshore low-cost competitive mecca for companies.
We would need to have lower taxes on foreign rich people than the Continent, pay lower wages to unskilled people than elsewhere in Europe and cut public spending further to keep taxes down. We would need to make old people work longer. Oh, and we would need a huge influx of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, to ensure that we had a very competitive workforce.
We would also need new trade deals to replace the ones we had abandoned. In Europe, for all its faults, corporate interests are balanced by those of workers but in any other trade deal we would need to overlook these. Our regulation would have to be more attractive to corporate elites, not less. It would be vital that corporate lobbying was even more successful than it has been in the past."
Finkelstein wrote that as a Remainer not a Leaver. He was campaigning furiously for Remain in his articles.
Yes and now what he predicted is coming to pass. Hammonds threat to the EU about the UKs future economic model was well received by most of the Leavers on here.
So it should be. Because we believe in low tax rates encouraging competition and ultimately boosting efficiency and productivity and causing economic growth. Which results in higher tax revenues and higher wages.
Fink mistakenly claimed there would be lower revenues and lower wages. That is where he was wrong. We don't believe that and we don't want that. We do want lower tax rates. Look up the Laffer Curve.
Laffer Curve is U-shaped implying there is a rate below which the tax take starts to reduce. If it were that easy to raise revenue we would have already reduced Corp Tax to 0.1%.
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
It's NOT harmless Nick. The endless drip drip drip of condescension towards those not in the project is damaging. Righties tend to disparage lefties because 'such and such a policy is insane' (salary caps being last weeks' example). Lefties tend to disparage righties by saying 'you're evil or stupid' (most of what comes out of any given lefty's gob). Yes I'm a political nerd as are most on here. Delighted to have a feisty debate about content. Less delighted to start the day with a 'harmless' cartoon saying that the new POTUS is an imbecile just because. He's obviously a smarter guy than all the loser lefties in the USA! Can we please put identity politics and disdain back in their box.
k.
Interesting article in yesterday's Sunday Times by Nial Fergusan, asking whether the Left will be able to cope if Trump's policies actually turn out to work.
All administrations solves some things, but in doing so creates new problems. It's the latter that usually creates the oxygen for what comes next. Trump will not be immune from that.
I'd say each administration focuses on 3/4 priorities, and caretakes the rest, with a skew through the prism of their worldview. If it does well, it's re-elected. If not, there's a change, and the next one focusses on a different mix of 3/4 priorities.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please. 1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change. 1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please 1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation 2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change. 2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN. 2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
It's NOT harmless Nick. The endless drip drip drip of condescension towards those not in the project is damaging. Righties tend to disparage lefties because 'such and such a policy is insane' (salary caps being last weeks' example). Lefties tend to disparage righties by saying 'you're evil or stupid' (most of what comes out of any given lefty's gob). Yes I'm a political nerd as are most on here. Delighted to have a feisty debate about content. Less delighted to start the day with a 'harmless' cartoon saying that the new POTUS is an imbecile just because. He's obviously a smarter guy than all the loser lefties in the USA! Can we please put identity politics and disdain back in their box.
k.
Interesting article in yesterday's Sunday Times by Nial Fergusan, asking whether the Left will be able to cope if Trump's policies actually turn out to work.
All administrations solves some things, but in doing so creates new problems. It's the latter that usually creates the oxygen for what comes next. Trump will not be immune from that.
I'd say each administration focuses on 3/4 priorities, and caretakes the rest, with a skew through the prism of their worldview. If it does well, it's re-elected. If not, there's a change, and the next one focusses on a different mix of 3/4 priorities.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please. 1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change. 1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please 1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation 2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change. 2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN. 2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
Boston Bobblehead Clinton Global Initiative is closing its doors for good after @HillaryClinton LOST & there's no influence to peddle https://t.co/XD50khdmxB
Losing the election must have cost Clan Clinton hundreds of millions of dollars in lost "influence" revenues.
It was all for charidee - honest.
Those high society New York weddings are expensive!
Mr. Rog, the main advantage Andromeda enjoyed was a good premise, and Lexa Doig. There was a hell of a lot wrong with the series.
As an aside, I've been watching DS9 (CBS Action/Freeview channel 70) at 8pm weeknights for a little while. Really holds up well, better than I remembered. The long term plot arcs and recurring secondary cast of characters make it a cut above the other Trek series.
Services will be a big issue here. Are we going to give huge american health companies more access to UK?
As I recall, during the campaign, the US health company thing was a big scoring point for Leave: 'See what a terrible deal that awful EU is going to impose on us - US health sharks involved in our beloved NHS!' (I hope the Leavers will stay consistent in the post-Brexit world.)
Services will be a big issue here. Are we going to give huge american health companies more access to UK?
As I recall, during the campaign, the US health company thing was a big scoring point for Leave: 'See what a terrible deal that awful EU is going to impose on us - US health sharks involved in our beloved NHS!' (I hope the Leavers will stay consistent in the post-Brexit world.)
Don't Leavers dream of the name Kaiser being emblazoned on our hospitals?
So we're going to get this unpleasant election. Awful.
If there were any justice in the world, the NI voters would punish SF and the DUP for provoking the election.
I won't hold my breath.
It would be good to see Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties stand in NI as they do everywhere else, rather than leaving the sectarian parties of all colours to dominate politics in Ulster.
Are there any betting opportunities on TM speech tomorrow?
You can bet on the value of Sterling...
I earn in $ so in a sense I am... But I just turn it into £ every month as I have no idea of what currency markets will do and to be honest am sceptical that anyone else really does... At least that minimises the risk.
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?
Right to leave 47%
Wrong to leave 43%'
Hardly the enthusiastic embrace of Leave by pragmatic Remainers that's touted on here.
Otoh in Scotland it's 30-59 which suggests the will of the Scots is fairly settled.
They should have asked people in Scotland
"Do you think unrestricted immigration to Scotland from Romania, Bulgaria and Poland is a price worth paying for Scotland to continue to be able to send 10% of its exports outside of Britain to countries in the EU?"
Or an equally unbiased question:
"Do you think giving up a single market of 500m people is a price worth paying to give Westminster to ability to sign its own trade deal with Burundi?"
Actually the question you should be asking is whether it is worth having barriers to trade with 93% of the world so that we can have barrier free trade with the 6% in the EU.
And if the UK were the world's superpower that might be a question worth asking. As we aren't, and the US and China are more protectionist in instinct than the EU, it seems nothing more than a pipe dream.
Nope basic reality. As long as we remain in the EU we have absolute no control over our trade and whether or not other countries are open to trade deals becomes immaterial because inside the EU we are not open.
"To be a success outside the single market, to be attractive to businesses and to investment, we would need to be a European offshore low-cost competitive mecca for companies.
We would need to have lower taxes on foreign rich people than the Continent, pay lower wages to unskilled people than elsewhere in Europe and cut public spending further to keep taxes down. We would need to make old people work longer. Oh, and we would need a huge influx of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, to ensure that we had a very competitive workforce.
We would also need new trade deals to replace the ones we had abandoned. In Europe, for all its faults, corporate interests are balanced by those of workers but in any other trade deal we would need to overlook these. Our regulation would have to be more attractive to corporate elites, not less. It would be vital that corporate lobbying was even more successful than it has been in the past."
Finkelstein wrote that as a Remainer not a Leaver. He was campaigning furiously for Remain in his articles.
Yes and now what he predicted is coming to pass. Hammonds threat to the EU about the UKs future economic model was well received by most of the Leavers on here.
So it should be. Because we believe in low tax rates encouraging competition and ultimately boosting efficiency and productivity and causing economic growth. Which results in higher tax revenues and higher wages.
Fink mistakenly claimed there would be lower revenues and lower wages. That is where he was wrong. We don't believe that and we don't want that. We do want lower tax rates. Look up the Laffer Curve.
Laffer Curve is U-shaped implying there is a rate below which the tax take starts to reduce. If it were that easy to raise revenue we would have already reduced Corp Tax to 0.1%.
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
Technically speaking the Laffer curve is also multidimensional since optimum tax take also depends on tax rates elsewhere. Am pretty sure no one has solved the partial differential equations that no doubt would drop out.
On a post-brexit trade deal with the US - presumably any such deal would have to be voted on in parliament? Considering the slender tory majority, there's certainly no guarantee that a trade deal would pass anyway? It would be very easy to portray it as us flogging family silver to Trump, so it can be easily opposed.
Is there any polling on whether the country actually supports negotiating new trade deals?
I would imagine in the aftermath of us leaving we would leave all standards the same as currently - so nothing would change for a good while.
Once again, that's not the issue. It's certification.
We can make things to the standard, but they must be certified by an independent and ratified body. Currently in the EU. Replicating that is the problem, not making the widgets.
Untrue. The EU and many other countries are signatories to international standard certifications. Decided at bodies which supercede the EU but at which we have no say as we have surrendered our voice and our vote to the EU.
Worth noting that bet not just about weak pound but also about what dollar does. The article RCS linked to suggested that if Trump follows through on his trade tax that will strengthen dollar by 15% I think.
I'd say each administration focuses on 3/4 priorities, and caretakes the rest, with a skew through the prism of their worldview. If it does well, it's re-elected. If not, there's a change, and the next one focusses on a different mix of 3/4 priorities.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please. 1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change. 1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please 1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation 2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change. 2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN. 2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
Nice summary! Anecdotally I can confirm the impression that Governments and MPs concentrate on a few things at a time. As an MP you're asked to vote on half a dozen things every day, most of which you're only vaguely familiar with (and honestly it is not possible to become an expert on six things a day), so you get stuck into the 1-2 that you or your constituents really care about and hope for the best on the rest.
That's why even the most rebellious MPs *usually* vote with the party line - if you get "Statutory Instrument on Nortth Sea cod quotas, amendment", you're an MP or indeed a Minister for an inland constituency, you just vote with the whip. Ministers get totally emboiled with their issues and have even less time to look at anything else.
On a post-brexit trade deal with the US - presumably any such deal would have to be voted on in parliament? Considering the slender tory majority, there's certainly no guarantee that a trade deal would pass anyway? It would be very easy to portray it as us flogging family silver to Trump, so it can be easily opposed.
Is there any polling on whether the country actually supports negotiating new trade deals?
A very good question - I suspect headline there would be support, but under detailed questioning/focus group explanation of what trade deals mean, support would fall away markedly.
I would imagine in the aftermath of us leaving we would leave all standards the same as currently - so nothing would change for a good while.
Once again, that's not the issue. It's certification.
We can make things to the standard, but they must be certified by an independent and ratified body. Currently in the EU. Replicating that is the problem, not making the widgets.
Untrue. The EU and many other countries are signatories to international standard certifications. Decided at bodies which supercede the EU but at which we have no say as we have surrendered our voice and our vote to the EU.
The technical standard and the legal regulatory framework are not the same thing. Even with the same underlying standards, you can get divergence and NTBs.
"To be a success outside the single market, to be attractive to businesses and to investment, we would need to be a European offshore low-cost competitive mecca for companies.
We would need to have lower taxes on foreign rich people than the Continent, pay lower wages to unskilled people than elsewhere in Europe and cut public spending further to keep taxes down. We would need to make old people work longer. Oh, and we would need a huge influx of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, to ensure that we had a very competitive workforce.
We would also need new trade deals to replace the ones we had abandoned. In Europe, for all its faults, corporate interests are balanced by those of workers but in any other trade deal we would need to overlook these. Our regulation would have to be more attractive to corporate elites, not less. It would be vital that corporate lobbying was even more successful than it has been in the past."
Finkelstein wrote that as a Remainer not a Leaver. He was campaigning furiously for Remain in his articles.
Yes and now what he predicted is coming to pass. Hammonds threat to the EU about the UKs future economic model was well received by most of the Leavers on here.
So it should be. Because we believe in low tax rates encouraging competition and ultimately boosting efficiency and productivity and causing economic growth. Which results in higher tax revenues and higher wages.
Fink mistakenly claimed there would be lower revenues and lower wages. That is where he was wrong. We don't believe that and we don't want that. We do want lower tax rates. Look up the Laffer Curve.
Laffer Curve is U-shaped implying there is a rate below which the tax take starts to reduce. If it were that easy to raise revenue we would have already reduced Corp Tax to 0.1%.
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
The tax and regulatory policy is already run for the benefit of large corps and membership of the EU exentuates that. Many of the tax avoidance schemes run by big companies would not work if we were not on the EU
I'd say each administration focuses on 3/4 priorities, and caretakes the rest, with a skew through the prism of their worldview. If it does well, it's re-elected. If not, there's a change, and the next one focusses on a different mix of 3/4 priorities.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please. 1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change. 1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please 1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation 2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change. 2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN. 2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
Nice summary! Anecdotally I can confirm the impression that Governments and MPs concentrate on a few things at a time. As an MP you're asked to vote on half a dozen things every day, most of which you're only vaguely familiar with (and honestly it is not possible to become an expert on six things a day), so you get stuck into the 1-2 that you or your constituents really care about and hope for the best on the rest.
That's why even the most rebellious MPs *usually* vote with the party line - if you get "Statutory Instrument on Nortth Sea cod quotas, amendment", you're an MP or indeed a Minister for an inland constituency, you just vote with the whip. Ministers get totally emboiled with their issues and have even less time to look at anything else.
"To be a success outside the single market, to be attractive to businesses and to investment, we would need to be a European offshore low-cost competitive mecca for companies.
We would need to have lower taxes on foreign rich people than the Continent, pay lower wages to unskilled people than elsewhere in Europe and cut public spending further to keep taxes down. We would need to make old people work longer. Oh, and we would need a huge influx of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, to ensure that we had a very competitive workforce.
We would also need new trade deals to replace the ones we had abandoned. In Europe, for all its faults, corporate interests are balanced by those of workers but in any other trade deal we would need to overlook these. Our regulation would have to be more attractive to corporate elites, not less. It would be vital that corporate lobbying was even more successful than it has been in the past."
Finkelstein wrote that as a Remainer not a Leaver. He was campaigning furiously for Remain in his articles.
Yes and now what he predicted is coming to pass. Hammonds threat to the EU about the UKs future economic model was well received by most of the Leavers on here.
So it should be. Because we believe in low tax rates encouraging competition and ultimately boosting efficiency and productivity and causing economic growth. Which results in higher tax revenues and higher wages.
Fink mistakenly claimed there would be lower revenues and lower wages. That is where he was wrong. We don't believe that and we don't want that. We do want lower tax rates. Look up the Laffer Curve.
Laffer Curve is U-shaped implying there is a rate below which the tax take starts to reduce. If it were that easy to raise revenue we would have already reduced Corp Tax to 0.1%.
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
It's an upside down u (actually it probably has many peaks and troughs). The argument between left and right is to whether we're on the left or right of the peak of the curve. We think we're to the right of it and being more competitive is better than being more co-operative.
Finkelstein wrote that as a Remainer not a Leaver. He was campaigning furiously for Remain in his articles.
Yes and now what he predicted is coming to pass. Hammonds threat to the EU about the UKs future economic model was well received by most of the Leavers on here.
So it should be. Because we believe in low tax rates encouraging competition and ultimately boosting efficiency and productivity and causing economic growth. Which results in higher tax revenues and higher wages.
Fink mistakenly claimed there would be lower revenues and lower wages. That is where he was wrong. We don't believe that and we don't want that. We do want lower tax rates. Look up the Laffer Curve.
Laffer Curve is U-shaped implying there is a rate below which the tax take starts to reduce. If it were that easy to raise revenue we would have already reduced Corp Tax to 0.1%.
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
Technically speaking the Laffer curve is also multidimensional since optimum tax take also depends on tax rates elsewhere. Am pretty sure no one has solved the partial differential equations that no doubt would drop out.
Yes, the tax take for a given tax rate has a number of variables other than the amount of taxable activity that's undertaken. Other determinants are how easily the tax is avoided (setting up a company to avoid high income taxes etc) and the ease of locating to a different jurisdiction (why do all the international travelling sportsmen base themselves in Switzerland and Monaco - it isn't for the sun and the skiing). Personal mobility for those with high multiple income streams has never been easier.
Services will be a big issue here. Are we going to give huge american health companies more access to UK?
As I recall, during the campaign, the US health company thing was a big scoring point for Leave: 'See what a terrible deal that awful EU is going to impose on us - US health sharks involved in our beloved NHS!' (I hope the Leavers will stay consistent in the post-Brexit world.)
Don't Leavers dream of the name Kaiser being emblazoned on our hospitals?
Kaiser Franz-Josef, Kaiser Karl, Kaiser Wilhelm...
So we're going to get this unpleasant election. Awful.
If there were any justice in the world, the NI voters would punish SF and the DUP for provoking the election.
I won't hold my breath.
I may give up and move back to England if they don't. I will definitely be in despair.
Who are you going to vote for, Lucian? UUP? Alliance?
I'm working for a UUP MLA and am a party member. Alliance is very insignificant in the west. I will vote UUP with transfer votes to the SDLP in case (by gaining ground) we get over quota.
I'd say each administration focuses on 3/4 priorities, and caretakes the rest, with a skew through the prism of their worldview. If it does well, it's re-elected. If not, there's a change, and the next one focusses on a different mix of 3/4 priorities.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please. 1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change. 1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please 1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation 2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change. 2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN. 2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
Nice summary! Anecdotally I can confirm the impression that Governments and MPs concentrate on a few things at a time. As an MP you're asked to vote on half a dozen things every day, most of which you're only vaguely familiar with (and honestly it is not possible to become an expert on six things a day), so you get stuck into the 1-2 that you or your constituents really care about and hope for the best on the rest.
That's why even the most rebellious MPs *usually* vote with the party line - if you get "Statutory Instrument on Nortth Sea cod quotas, amendment", you're an MP or indeed a Minister for an inland constituency, you just vote with the whip. Ministers get totally emboiled with their issues and have even less time to look at anything else.
Cheers. Yes, politicians are only human, like everyone else.
My hope is that the less hardcore DUP activists will not really fancy going out canvassing. I was out delivering a 2017 calendar with a certain spring in my step over the weekend. But I am fearful that the more unpleasant the election, the more voters will vote paint by numbers sectarianism.
I see the definition is "two consecutive quarters of negative growth as confirmed by the chancellor of the exchequer." Surely that should be as confirmed by the ONS?
That was exactly what I wondered. It's "as announced by the chancellor" but we might not know until Feb/March 2018 as to whether negative growth in Q4 2017 actually occurred.
Would the bet have been settled as a 'no' by then?
Otherwise you're hinging off Q2 and Q3 2017, which doesn't look very likely. This is likely to be a slanging match phase of the negotiations with lots of rumours, and little in fact, until the French/Dutch/German elections are all safely out of the way.
That was exactly what I wondered. It's "as announced by the chancellor" but we might not know until Feb/March 2018 as to whether negative growth in Q4 2017 actually occurred.
Would the bet have been settled as a 'no' by then?
Otherwise you're hinging off Q2 and Q3 2017, which doesn't look very likely. This is likely to be a slanging match phase of the negotiations with lots of rumours, and little in fact, until the French/Dutch/German elections are all safely out of the way.
Actually we may not know until April/May 18. If Q4 17 and Q1 18 are negative then that is a recession entered into in 17.
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You have to wonder how much Merkel regrets not having agreed some deal with Cameron on immigration but with Ivan Rogers so pro EU no one was prepared to tell Merkel we will walk away. Also why has no one got rid of Juncker, he was in charge when this happened
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You think Trump will intervene to help the UK get a good deal with the EU?
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You think Trump will intervene to help the UK get a good deal with the EU?
He may have an influence in direct comments or tweets - who knows what may happen with him
That was exactly what I wondered. It's "as announced by the chancellor" but we might not know until Feb/March 2018 as to whether negative growth in Q4 2017 actually occurred.
Would the bet have been settled as a 'no' by then?
Otherwise you're hinging off Q2 and Q3 2017, which doesn't look very likely. This is likely to be a slanging match phase of the negotiations with lots of rumours, and little in fact, until the French/Dutch/German elections are all safely out of the way.
Actually we may not know until April/May 18. If Q4 17 and Q1 18 are negative then that is a recession entered into in 17.
But I think the terms of the bet demand two quarters of negative growth in 2017.
So you'd know there's a maybe by Oct/Nov this year (if Q3 was negative) but if it wasn't, you'd definitely lose. Otherwise, you might need to wait till 2018 to find out if Q4 was also negative to win.
Possible value to back 1/4 for 'no recession' but there are far more attractive bets out there.
On defence, given the role, responsibilities and aspirations of the UK as an independent power, we should be spending something like 2.8-3% GDP on defence, not barely scraping 2%.
Boy oh boy is there waste in the MoD, but we're something like short of: RN (5-6 escort capital ships, and about 8-10k sailors), RAF (3-4 squadrons, and about 5k personnel, and maritime surveillance aircraft) and the army about 25k men short. Plus a chunk on R&D.
I'd have thought we'd need c.25 escort ships, 2 carriers, 8 subs, 4 strategic subs and 100+ F35s for our fleet. 6 strike squadrons and 8 for home defence. And about 105,000-110,000 men in the army to have fully flexible strategic options, plus meet our existing standing commitments.
Our logistics and supply arm is probably ok.
If we're not willing to do that, we may as well give up and just have a minimum home defence force because at the moment we are trying (and failing) to do everything on the thinnest of shoe strings, and doing little of it well.
Why piss any more money down the drain , only benefactors are teh fat armchair admirals and generals, the only thing we have plenty of.
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You have to wonder how much Merkel regrets not having agreed some deal with Cameron on immigration but with Ivan Rogers so pro EU no one was prepared to tell Merkel we will walk away. Also why has no one got rid of Juncker, he was in charge when this happened
I'm just wading through 'All Out War'. Enjoying it so far, but Juncker isn't looming large atm.
The book's thesis is that Merkel's East German origins meant she doesn't regard FoM as a political principle but as an article of faith and therefore non-negotiable. Nothing she's said since June 23rd has indicated any moment of epiphany.
On defence, given the role, responsibilities and aspirations of the UK as an independent power, we should be spending something like 2.8-3% GDP on defence, not barely scraping 2%.
Boy oh boy is there waste in the MoD, but we're something like short of: RN (5-6 escort capital ships, and about 8-10k sailors), RAF (3-4 squadrons, and about 5k personnel, and maritime surveillance aircraft) and the army about 25k men short. Plus a chunk on R&D.
I'd have thought we'd need c.25 escort ships, 2 carriers, 8 subs, 4 strategic subs and 100+ F35s for our fleet. 6 strike squadrons and 8 for home defence. And about 105,000-110,000 men in the army to have fully flexible strategic options, plus meet our existing standing commitments.
Our logistics and supply arm is probably ok.
If we're not willing to do that, we may as well give up and just have a minimum home defence force because at the moment we are trying (and failing) to do everything on the thinnest of shoe strings, and doing little of it well.
Why piss any more money down the drain , only benefactors are teh fat armchair admirals and generals, the only thing we have plenty of.
It depends if we want to play a part in shaping the future world events or not.
Deciding 'no', is not cost free. We will be spectators to those that do, including the US, China, Russia, and probably India, and less able to build alliances in our interests.
We won't be able to complain if we don't like what happens.
On defence, given the role, responsibilities and aspirations of the UK as an independent power, we should be spending something like 2.8-3% GDP on defence, not barely scraping 2%.
Boy oh boy is there waste in the MoD, but we're something like short of: RN (5-6 escort capital ships, and about 8-10k sailors), RAF (3-4 squadrons, and about 5k personnel, and maritime surveillance aircraft) and the army about 25k men short. Plus a chunk on R&D.
I'd have thought we'd need c.25 escort ships, 2 carriers, 8 subs, 4 strategic subs and 100+ F35s for our fleet. 6 strike squadrons and 8 for home defence. And about 105,000-110,000 men in the army to have fully flexible strategic options, plus meet our existing standing commitments.
Our logistics and supply arm is probably ok.
If we're not willing to do that, we may as well give up and just have a minimum home defence force because at the moment we are trying (and failing) to do everything on the thinnest of shoe strings, and doing little of it well.
Why piss any more money down the drain , only benefactors are teh fat armchair admirals and generals, the only thing we have plenty of.
Agree to some extent, especially when we have the NHS and social care to fund, let other European nations pay more for their own defence and in the Middle East we will mainly play a support role, beyond defending the Falklands we are unlikely to be fighting on our own and even there the new President of Argentina is more reasonable
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You think Trump will intervene to help the UK get a good deal with the EU?
TRump will be looking after Trump , UK will only matter if it helps him.
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
If you believe that or the BBC ever you will believe anything.
Even Norma Smith of the BBC is saying that Trump coming out endorsing Brexit and standing side by side with the UK strengthens TM's hand in the negotiations
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
You have to wonder how much Merkel regrets not having agreed some deal with Cameron on immigration but with Ivan Rogers so pro EU no one was prepared to tell Merkel we will walk away. Also why has no one got rid of Juncker, he was in charge when this happened
I'm just wading through 'All Out War'. Enjoying it so far, but Juncker isn't looming large atm.
The book's thesis is that Merkel's East German origins meant she doesn't regard FoM as a political principle but as an article of faith and therefore non-negotiable. Nothing she's said since June 23rd has indicated any moment of epiphany.
An interesting and understandable viewpoint for her, still crap though.
On defence, given the role, responsibilities and aspirations of the UK as an independent power, we should be spending something like 2.8-3% GDP on defence, not barely scraping 2%.
Boy oh boy is there waste in the MoD, but we're something like short of: RN (5-6 escort capital ships, and about 8-10k sailors), RAF (3-4 squadrons, and about 5k personnel, and maritime surveillance aircraft) and the army about 25k men short. Plus a chunk on R&D.
I'd have thought we'd need c.25 escort ships, 2 carriers, 8 subs, 4 strategic subs and 100+ F35s for our fleet. 6 strike squadrons and 8 for home defence. And about 105,000-110,000 men in the army to have fully flexible strategic options, plus meet our existing standing commitments.
Our logistics and supply arm is probably ok.
If we're not willing to do that, we may as well give up and just have a minimum home defence force because at the moment we are trying (and failing) to do everything on the thinnest of shoe strings, and doing little of it well.
Why piss any more money down the drain , only benefactors are teh fat armchair admirals and generals, the only thing we have plenty of.
It depends if we want to play a part in shaping the future world events or not.
Deciding 'no', is not cost free. We will be spectators to those that do, including the US, China, Russia, and probably India, and less able to build alliances in our interests.
We won't be able to complain if we don't like what happens.
Get shot of useless Trident and spend it on real weapons
If we're not willing to do that, we may as well give up and just have a minimum home defence force because at the moment we are trying (and failing) to do everything on the thinnest of shoe strings, and doing little of it well.
Why piss any more money down the drain , only benefactors are teh fat armchair admirals and generals, the only thing we have plenty of.
It depends if we want to play a part in shaping the future world events or not.
Deciding 'no', is not cost free. We will be spectators to those that do, including the US, China, Russia, and probably India, and less able to build alliances in our interests.
We won't be able to complain if we don't like what happens.
Get shot of useless Trident and spend it on real weapons
Too much risk. I'm worried about Russia and China, and existing European defence capability would make a piece of origami look threatening.
I have the series taped is it worth watching or should I dump it
It starts well, parts of each episode have you genuinely interested, but the pay-off with the endings and "twists" are like a six year old has done them.
Comments
But while you're there you might as well take their 7/2 on UKIP to win a Parliamentary by-election in 2017 (see Specials)
Finkelstein's point is that UK tax and regulatory policy will be run for the benefit of large corps and their bottom line rather than the average UK citizens.
1945? We won the war but we want to win the peace. Welfare state please.
1964? Tories are fusty. More than the economy please. We want some social change.
1979? Unions and the economy are dinosaurs. Radical medicine please
1997? Jesus. Enough of these Tories. We want more on public services, plus some constitutional modernisation
2010? Budget balance is crazy; Gordon is crazy. Dunno. But want a change.
2012-date: immigration is out-of-control. Incomes are flatlining. We don't want Miliband (are you serious?) but, please: LISTEN.
2016: You haven't listened. We're taking the nuclear option. Leave.
That's why democracy works. There's always a prospect of change, and a chance to tack the ship back your way again in the future.
Overall, more or less, the ship sails broadly in a direction most people are comfortable with.
Bear trap being set here.
As an aside, I've been watching DS9 (CBS Action/Freeview channel 70) at 8pm weeknights for a little while. Really holds up well, better than I remembered. The long term plot arcs and recurring secondary cast of characters make it a cut above the other Trek series.
Anyway, I must be off.
http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/other/Labour-leader-Jeremy-Corbyn-visits-West-Cumbria-d350d492-1a71-49c3-a93c-b9b7637fd7fa-ds
I won't hold my breath.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4122872/After-enduring-shocking-self-indulgent-hyped-Sherlock-finale-exasperated-TV-critic-asks-BBC-bigwigs-fig-viewers.html
But as you say, not holding breath.
Blimey that is an over sight! 11/4 to win this one or 7/2 to win one at all... Hmmm not there now
I have no idea about exachnge rate at all.. plenty on here are experts it seems.. any value?
Lowest GBP/USD rate 2017
$1.19-1.1 8/11
$1.09-1 11/10
$>£ - 10/1
https://sports.betway.com/#/specials/current-affairs/pound
Is there any polling on whether the country actually supports negotiating new trade deals?
The article RCS linked to suggested that if Trump follows through on his trade tax that will strengthen dollar by 15% I think.
That's why even the most rebellious MPs *usually* vote with the party line - if you get "Statutory Instrument on Nortth Sea cod quotas, amendment", you're an MP or indeed a Minister for an inland constituency, you just vote with the whip. Ministers get totally emboiled with their issues and have even less time to look at anything else.
The age of trade deals may be over....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-inauguration-impeach-process-get-rid-of-him-25th-amendment-a7528421.html
Interesting, especially if he falls out with his Cabinet, which he will.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/2116055/Specials.html
Baker McKenzie predict hit to UK legal sector as a result of Brexit.
57%, not a vast majority, pro remain at the end of May. No guarantee about the voodocity status of the poll.
Would the bet have been settled as a 'no' by then?
Otherwise you're hinging off Q2 and Q3 2017, which doesn't look very likely. This is likely to be a slanging match phase of the negotiations with lots of rumours, and little in fact, until the French/Dutch/German elections are all safely out of the way.
I do not think the EU saw this coming and it is to be hoped that this focusses the EU on the complexity of the issues and prompts them to come to the table with a deal attitude. They have as much if not more to lose and must be concerned that if they mess up the Donald will intervene as an arbiter
What an amazing time we are living through and I believe everyone, on both sides, must be mesmerised by recent events
https://twitter.com/pppolitics/status/820986440205107201
Brownie points for the PBer who finds that picture.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-defends-rally-men-women-5640059
So you'd know there's a maybe by Oct/Nov this year (if Q3 was negative) but if it wasn't, you'd definitely lose. Otherwise, you might need to wait till 2018 to find out if Q4 was also negative to win.
Possible value to back 1/4 for 'no recession' but there are far more attractive bets out there.
The book's thesis is that Merkel's East German origins meant she doesn't regard FoM as a political principle but as an article of faith and therefore non-negotiable. Nothing she's said since June 23rd has indicated any moment of epiphany.
Deciding 'no', is not cost free. We will be spectators to those that do, including the US, China, Russia, and probably India, and less able to build alliances in our interests.
We won't be able to complain if we don't like what happens.
NEW THREAD
"A convincing win for Remain, and the Brexiteers "accept the settled will of the British people" and STFU.
It won't happen, but it's technically possible. "
So not yet.
Pathetic, and shit.