If the EU forced us to pay such a large amount of money clearly we'd have to make savings elsewhere... Starting with pulling out of NATO.
Would Donald stay in NATO is we pulled out? Doubt it!
GIN, what would all those admirals and generals do if we were not in NATO. We have 33 Admirals , 260 Capatains and a paltry 19 boats, WTF , aircraft carriers that cannot take planes , planning frigates without missiles and our Type 45's can be heard at a 100 miles with the naked ear. Our military has been turned into a joke.
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs.
No, it doesn't. I can't believe we're doing this again, three years after the referendum[1]. The UK remained in existence in the 1920's when Ireland left.
[1] Although as we're going to be banging on about Brexit for the next five years, it doesn't surprise me.
So what would the UK consist of if England became independent?
The United Kingdon of Little Britain and Northern Ireland ?
No. It would just be Little England (& wales) in the longer term. The tipping point at which the 6 counties would choose to rejoin the rest of Ireland became a little closer as a result of the votes on 23/6/16 and 2/3/17.
If the EU forced us to pay such a large amount of money clearly we'd have to make savings elsewhere... Starting with pulling out of NATO.
Would Donald stay in NATO is we pulled out? Doubt it!
All that bridge building with the GOP, and Theresa May would blow it all by proving herself to be more of a Donald than the Donald. We'd be a pariah state in Washington.
Well that as may be but choices will have be made if we're forced to pay such an exorbitant amount. I'd rather be a "pariah state" in Washington than see the NHS run out of money...
Anything to 'save the NHS'... Is there any other western country that is so completely beholden to decisions made in the 40s?
Well I expect you can afford to go Private but for most sensible people the NHS is a top priority... More so than paying for NATO (or Jean Claude Junckers liquid lunches for that matter)
If the EU forced us to pay such a large amount of money clearly we'd have to make savings elsewhere... Starting with pulling out of NATO.
Would Donald stay in NATO is we pulled out? Doubt it!
GIN, what would all those admirals and generals do if we were not in NATO. We have 33 Admirals , 260 Capatains and a paltry 19 boats, WTF , aircraft carriers that cannot take planes , planning frigates without missiles and our Type 45's can be heard at a 100 miles with the naked ear. Our military has been turned into a joke.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Usual bilge from Scott, he is a stranger to the truth , blindly follows his CCHQ instructions to the letter, accompanied by his helper Carlotta, the sites Mutt and Jeff entertainment duo. Mirrors the Tory surge in Scotland.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Usual bilge from Scott, he is a stranger to the truth , blindly follows his CCHQ instructions to the letter, accompanied by his helper Carlotta, the sites Mutt and Jeff entertainment duo. Mirrors the Tory surge in Scotland.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!
No. At the time the U.K. was created in 1801, legally there was no 'Kingdom of Scotland'. That had been united with England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. This was further united with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 (although the Kingdom of Ireland was reduced to the six counties after 1949).
Therefore, an independent state of Scotland would be a new state. Not successor to a divided state. It would have no claims on the UK assets, but it could also walk away from the UK's debts if it so wished. That would not affect any international positions either but it would also mean Scotland would have to apply to join NATO, the EU and UN as a new country.
On that basis, an independent England state could walk away from the UK's debts too!
Yes, it could. But it would also walk away from the UK's assets, foreign obligations/advantages and property as well. Which doesn't seem likely.
The parallel with the Russian Federation may be of interest here. In mid-1991, the RSSR declared independence from the USSR, quite a while before the actual breakup in December. So in theory, it could have repudiated the $66 billion of debt it inherited. Why then did it not do so? Two reasons:
1) by taking on the liabilities and assuming the role of a continuing state it also took on most of the liquid assets and prestige abroad, including the UN SC seat;
2) repudiating its debts would have meant the instant loss of access to credit abroad, which was desperately needed as the economy was in full-scale meltdown. (Gorbachev and even the USSR might have survived if the US had made him a loan in April.) England is also living beyond its means and would be unable to cut off access to international markets by effectively defaulting (as nobody would believe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could carry the UK's debts alone). Scotland as a much smaller country and not vital to U.K. prosperity would be a different matter.
As an aside, ironically the situation in the USSR in 1991 was similar to the situation the Provisional Government had faced in 1917 when it decided not to repudiate the Tsar's huge debts and continue with the war to keep credit lines from Britain and France open. Eventually Lenin after seizing power defaulted on those debts - ultimately of course Yeltsin had to do the same although he achieved by incompetence what Lenin achieved on principle.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Usual bilge from Scott, he is a stranger to the truth , blindly follows his CCHQ instructions to the letter, accompanied by his helper Carlotta, the sites Mutt and Jeff entertainment duo. Mirrors the Tory surge in Scotland.
Afternoon Malc!
Hello Gin, hope you are well, and not an Admiral.
Sun is splitting the sky here so off to do some gardening.
If the EU forced us to pay such a large amount of money clearly we'd have to make savings elsewhere... Starting with pulling out of NATO.
Would Donald stay in NATO is we pulled out? Doubt it!
All that bridge building with the GOP, and Theresa May would blow it all by proving herself to be more of a Donald than the Donald. We'd be a pariah state in Washington.
Well that as may be but choices will have be made if we're forced to pay such an exorbitant amount. I'd rather be a "pariah state" in Washington than see the NHS run out of money...
Anything to 'save the NHS'... Is there any other western country that is so completely beholden to decisions made in the 40s?
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
Usual bilge from Scott, he is a stranger to the truth , blindly follows his CCHQ instructions to the letter, accompanied by his helper Carlotta, the sites Mutt and Jeff entertainment duo. Mirrors the Tory surge in Scotland.
Afternoon Malc!
Hello Gin, hope you are well, and not an Admiral.
Sun is splitting the sky here so off to do some gardening.
Have a nice afternoon. Think I might have a "potter" this afternoon (if sun stays out) too.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
I don't know if it's the accumulation of bad news for the SNP, or something else not as yet revealed, but the Zoomer level on my timeline this morning reached "Unhinged"
I don't have access to the Times article, but "massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War" seems to be wrong.
According to ONS Scotland, 57,579 died in 2015, but more died in every year between 1996-2000 inclusive. E.g. in 1999 60,281 died.
So no spike at all over a sensible period of time. In fact the number of deaths has fallen even more as a percentage of the population which has risen (albeit modestly) over recent times. Looks like a non story to me.
yep its not a particularly Scottish story, as 2015 did see a spike in deaths across Europe as a whole. From the ONS in England and Wales
"The provisional number of deaths registered in the UK in 2015 was 602,782; a rise of 5.7% compared with 2014.
In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, provisional figures suggest the number of deaths in 2015 increased by 6.2% and 5.9% respectively.
Similar increases in deaths have been reported within Europe, with France reporting a rise of 7.3%, Spain 6.7%, Denmark 2.4% and Switzerland 5.2%; some of these figures are provisional
"Conservative politicians will propose an alternative to presidential candidate Francois Fillon, a senior politician from The Republicans party said, suggesting that Alain Juppe was the only option.
"In the coming hours, we will propose an initiative," Christian Estrosi, a close ally of former President Nicolas Sarkozy, told BFM TV, adding that it would be Monday morning.
"We do not have the time to debate who has the most talent. I don't think any of the forty-somethings in our political movement, who have talent, can take on the role to bring us together."
He said the initiative would be led by himself and other party heavyweights including Xavier Bertrand and Valerie Pecresse.
"The easiest thing obviously ... is the person who came second in the primaries and that quite simply is Alain Juppe," he said. "
I have been VAT registered as an individual for the last 17 years. I have never been tempted by the flat rate tax. The truth is that the records needed for VAT returns are also needed for tax and I would get into a hell of a mess if I only tried to sort it out once a year. As it is I copy my VAT books and send them onto the accountant who then produces a return.
My wife does my VAT returns for me. It takes her about 5 hours a quarter (a significant part of the work is done by Faculty Services Ltd, a services company for pretty much all practicing advocates in Scotland. I accept that those without this may take longer). I of course pay her for this and get to deduct the wages from tax.
It is not without its irritations but I sometimes think that complaints about the bureaucracy are a little over stated. It is annoying that I now have a completely pointless registration fee for data protection whose sole purpose seems to be to create some well paid employment but it is still minor.
Agreed. It is massively exaggerated. The business I run, annual turnover £25mn: the VAT return takes, frankly, seconds. It is a software printout - actually on-screen.
Because we are importing and exporting, we have to do the Intrastat - which is also software generated.
Larger business is usually ok as they need the accounting systems in place anyway.
It tends to affect the smaller businesses and start-ups, the ones who should be concentrating on becoming successful and creating jobs, not worrying about bureaucracy.
I have been VAT registered as an individual for the last 17 years. I have never been tempted by the flat rate tax. The truth is that the records needed for VAT returns are also needed for tax and I would get into a hell of a mess if I only tried to sort it out once a year. As it is I copy my VAT books and send them onto the accountant who then produces a return.
My wife does my VAT returns for me. It takes her about 5 hours a quarter (a significant part of the work is done by Faculty Services Ltd, a services company for pretty much all practicing advocates in Scotland. I accept that those without this may take longer). I of course pay her for this and get to deduct the wages from tax.
It is not without its irritations but I sometimes think that complaints about the bureaucracy are a little over stated. It is annoying that I now have a completely pointless registration fee for data protection whose sole purpose seems to be to create some well paid employment but it is still minor.
Agreed. It is massively exaggerated. The business I run, annual turnover £25mn: the VAT return takes, frankly, seconds. It is a software printout - actually on-screen.
Because we are importing and exporting, we have to do the Intrastat - which is also software generated.
Yes, for a larger company it's much easier, all the numbers are in the "System" and at the end of the month/quarter/year a "VAT Report" comes out.
For a one man band service provider he's dealing with the VAT on all his service invoices, and the VAT on all his expenses, to include goods for resale, transport, subsistence etc. If he's lucky he might have a wife to help him (to whom he can pay £40k a year as a PA, thus maximising income tax allowances ) but it's a right pain in the arse to keep on top of it all when you're trying to do stuff that earns you money.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
Neville Chamberlain negotiating.
If you go into a negotiation already planning to give things away and to demand nothing you lose out.
Its the sort of negotiating that Blair used when he gave away the Rebate not what Thatcher used to win the Rebate.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
I have been VAT registered as an individual for the last 17 years. I have never been tempted by the flat rate tax. The truth is that the records needed for VAT returns are also needed for tax and I would get into a hell of a mess if I only tried to sort it out once a year. As it is I copy my VAT books and send them onto the accountant who then produces a return.
My wife does my VAT returns for me. It takes her about 5 hours a quarter (a significant part of the work is done by Faculty Services Ltd, a services company for pretty much all practicing advocates in Scotland. I accept that those without this may take longer). I of course pay her for this and get to deduct the wages from tax.
It is not without its irritations but I sometimes think that complaints about the bureaucracy are a little over stated. It is annoying that I now have a completely pointless registration fee for data protection whose sole purpose seems to be to create some well paid employment but it is still minor.
Agreed. It is massively exaggerated. The business I run, annual turnover £25mn: the VAT return takes, frankly, seconds. It is a software printout - actually on-screen.
Because we are importing and exporting, we have to do the Intrastat - which is also software generated.
Larger business is usually ok as they need the accounting systems in place anyway.
It tends to affect the smaller businesses and start-ups, the ones who should be concentrating on becoming successful and creating jobs, not worrying about bureaucracy.
There is no bureaucracy. You simply note the VAT on all your invoices and spilt off the VAT element on bill received. Each month deduct the total of one from the total of theother and place the balance in a deposit account. Once a quarter send the amount off to HMRC.
I have never understood what is so confusing about it. It involves one subtraction operation per month and one payment every three months.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
Neville Chamberlain negotiating.
If you go into a negotiation already planning to give things away and to demand nothing you lose out.
Its the sort of negotiating that Blair used when he gave away the Rebate not what Thatcher used to win the Rebate.
Quite right. Going into the negotiations planning to give away our membership of the EU would be a grave error of statecraft. I'm glad some Brexiteers, such as your good self, can see this with such piercing clarity.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
I have been VAT registered as an individual for the last 17 years. I have never been tempted by the flat rate tax. The truth is that the records needed for VAT returns are also needed for tax and I would get into a hell of a mess if I only tried to sort it out once a year. As it is I copy my VAT books and send them onto the accountant who then produces a return.
My wife does my VAT returns for me. It takes her about 5 hours a quarter (a significant part of the work is done by Faculty Services Ltd, a services company for pretty much all practicing advocates in Scotland. I accept that those without this may take longer). I of course pay her for this and get to deduct the wages from tax.
It is not without its irritations but I sometimes think that complaints about the bureaucracy are a little over stated. It is annoying that I now have a completely pointless registration fee for data protection whose sole purpose seems to be to create some well paid employment but it is still minor.
Agreed. It is massively exaggerated. The business I run, annual turnover £25mn: the VAT return takes, frankly, seconds. It is a software printout - actually on-screen.
Because we are importing and exporting, we have to do the Intrastat - which is also software generated.
Larger business is usually ok as they need the accounting systems in place anyway.
It tends to affect the smaller businesses and start-ups, the ones who should be concentrating on becoming successful and creating jobs, not worrying about bureaucracy.
There is no bureaucracy. You simply note the VAT on all your invoices and spilt off the VAT element on bill received. Each month deduct the total of one from the total of theother and place the balance in a deposit account. Once a quarter send the amount off to HMRC.
I have never understood what is so confusing about it. It involves one subtraction operation per month and one payment every three months.
I have been VAT registered as an individual for the last 17 years. I have never been tempted by the flat rate tax. The truth is that the records needed for VAT returns are also needed for tax and I would get into a hell of a mess if I only tried to sort it out once a year. As it is I copy my VAT books and send them onto the accountant who then produces a return.
My wife does my VAT returns for me. It takes her about 5 hours a quarter (a significant part of the work is done by Faculty Services Ltd, a services company for pretty much all practicing advocates in Scotland. I accept that those without this may take longer). I of course pay her for this and get to deduct the wages from tax.
It is not without its irritations but I sometimes think that complaints about the bureaucracy are a little over stated. It is annoying that I now have a completely pointless registration fee for data protection whose sole purpose seems to be to create some well paid employment but it is still minor.
Agreed. It is massively exaggerated. The business I run, annual turnover £25mn: the VAT return takes, frankly, seconds. It is a software printout - actually on-screen.
Because we are importing and exporting, we have to do the Intrastat - which is also software generated.
Do you do that yourself or is your time too valuable? That is not sarcasm but a genuine comment as I would suggest anyone actually running a company with employees is wasting their time and talents if they are doing tax and VAT themselves. In which case how much is it costing you to pay someone to do it for you both internally and with your accountants?
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
I'd see transition payments for an adjustment period as well. But not a payment for access per se
How much would be saved if we simply cut the current and future pensions for UK nationals who worked for the EU - presumably part of what we would be paying for - post Brexit.
Lord Kinnock receives a £100k annual index linked pension alone for just 7 years work in Brussels. Lord Mandy and Baroness Ashton also have big pensions for just four years work way in excess of UK public sector equivalents. Baroness Ashton's pension is based on an EU salary which I believe was equivalent to what President Obama and HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State were paid at the same time COMBINED!
Couldn't we just slash these pensions to the level they would have got as UK MPs or civil servants on the grounds of 'they cost too much and are extortionate anyway'. Let Mandelson and Kinnock take us to court if they don't like it.
Polling company looks legit but Id wait to read the actual questions put....
The one-quarter share stated looks to be in line with other polls - but missing the crucial option of wanting a referendum soon after the Brexit terms are announced
Thank you Nigel, I only give back what I get , I am perfectly affable when conversing with people who are interested in discussing a topic in an intelligent and sensible manner.
It is not the 2 Trillion that UK have borrowed and does not constitute having "Borowing Powers" unless you are a cowed lickspittle Scottish Tory happy with a few crumbs from the table and unable to make your own decisions, an institutionalised cap doffing dullard with no intellect or ability to make personal decisions.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
For some kinds of health issue, the NHS has practically broken down in some areas of Scotland.
Which ones? And are there are reasons for the rise in mortality? ....... and I don’t mean lack of doctors or whatever. I mean health issues.
NHS dentistry in most of the Western Isles. A third of the population are being refused registration. Theoretically they could hunt for an NHS dentist on the mainland, but typically that would mean going out at 6am and getting back at 9pm, with around nine hours of travel by land and sea in between, for each appointment. Even those who are registered are sometimes kept waiting indefinitely for appointments - up to 18 months in some cases. Registration refusees are advised only to show up at the emergency service if painkillers aren't working and their sleep is being affected. Having constant toothache isn't sufficient. Then it's a quick extraction or three, and any other problems in their gobs aren't even looked at.
I don't know about the mortality, although there must be reasons for it. A massive spike to double the rate in England and Wales surely can't be down to a slightly greater preference north of the border, on average, for fatty foods.
Not wishing to belittle the inhabitants of the Western Isles, but a non-lethal problem affecting 0.5% of the Scottish population is hardly evidence of an imminent collapse
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
For some kinds of health issue, the NHS has practically broken down in some areas of Scotland.
Which ones? And are there are reasons for the rise in mortality? ....... and I don’t mean lack of doctors or whatever. I mean health issues.
h there must be reasons for it. A massive spike to double the rate in England and Wales surely can't be down to a slightly greater preference north of the border, on average, for fatty foods.
Utter bollox, I see local dentists advertising for NHS patients, do you live on Rockall you cretinous halfwit.
How helpful to a patient in the Western Isles is a Dentist in Ayrshire? Who is the cretinous half wit?
I know exactly
A severe shortage of dentists on Lewis is forcing islanders to seek treatment on the mainland.
Waiting lists have been frozen on the island and unregistered patients can only receive treatment in emergencies. The equivalent of six full-time dentists work in Stornoway and the town's £4.7m dental centre, which opened in 2011 and boasts seven purpose-built surgeries, is underused.
Islander Margaret Murray has launched a petition urging the Scottish Government to intervene.
"The only way we can register as NHS dental patients at the moment is to travel away from the island, to a town such as Inverness," she said.
How much would be saved if we simply cut the current and future pensions for UK nationals who worked for the EU - presumably part of what we would be paying for - post Brexit.
Lord Kinnock receives a £100k annual index linked pension alone for just 7 years work in Brussels. Lord Mandy and Baroness Ashton also have big pensions for just four years work way in excess of UK public sector equivalents. Baroness Ashton's pension is based on an EU salary which I believe was equivalent to what President Obama and HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State were paid at the same time COMBINED!
Couldn't we just slash these pensions to the level they would have got as UK MPs or civil servants on the grounds of 'they cost too much and are extortionate anyway'. Let Mandelson and Kinnock take us to court if they don't like it.
You don't get to billions of pounds via a few well-paid people, as much as I agree their remuneration was extortionate.
However having spoken to people who work in Brussels, most of their income - and pensions - are from national governments to begin with. I haven't yet seen how the €60bn breaks down but I am interested as to how the Commission came up with it.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
Neville Chamberlain negotiating.
If you go into a negotiation already planning to give things away and to demand nothing you lose out.
Its the sort of negotiating that Blair used when he gave away the Rebate not what Thatcher used to win the Rebate.
We're negotiating a separation and a new relationship, not an optional modification of an existing relationship. Time is not on our side. The risk IMO is that we waste time and capital on this unimportant stuff and end up paying anyway, instead of negotiating a settlement that's more in our interests. The EU will want to settle in the end but there is a short term advantage for them to string the negotiations along so business and opportunities can shift to the larger block before they agree to an arrangement that protects their interests. It's in our interest to settle early.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
Neville Chamberlain negotiating.
If you go into a negotiation already planning to give things away and to demand nothing you lose out.
Its the sort of negotiating that Blair used when he gave away the Rebate not what Thatcher used to win the Rebate.
Quite right. Going into the negotiations planning to give away our membership of the EU would be a grave error of statecraft. I'm glad some Brexiteers, such as your good self, can see this with such piercing clarity.
You're talking gibberish.
If you were so concerned about EU membership you should have opposed the moves to EverCloserUnion and the surrender negotiations conducted by Blair and Cameron.
#BREAKING Trump is requesting congressional intel committees to determine whether the Obama adm. abused its investigative powers in 2016 https://t.co/6gUQtxJSpJ
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
I'd see transition payments for an adjustment period as well. But not a payment for access per se
The only way I could see a payment for access working is if it were paid by banks in exchange for a proper full single market in financial services. Maybe the govt would be so kind as to reduce exceptional taxes on banks at the same time. That way the govt pays nothing but the British have to pay billions. Win-win.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
It must be either 'on se bat' or 'on va se battre'?
Not past tense, but doesn't exclude the possibility that the end is very near.
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
Indeed.
Paying for membership of specific programmes makes sense.
But there is no requirement to pay for free trade with a declining part of the world with which the UK has a huge current account deficit with.
BBC Archive #Onthisday 1965: Here's one for fans of retro grumbling, as people moan about the telephone service https://t.co/imJoPBMWJs
In some parts of the world, we still have to deal with entrenched monopoly telecoms "service" providers, who take a dozen hours of your time to sort out phone and Internet, and make you feel that you should be grateful that they choose to serve you at all.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
It doesn't make grammatical sense to me because it links a pronoun to the infinitive. In English something like "We to fight to the end"
BBC Archive #Onthisday 1965: Here's one for fans of retro grumbling, as people moan about the telephone service https://t.co/imJoPBMWJs
In some parts of the world, we still have to deal with entrenched monopoly telecoms "service" providers, who take a dozen hours of your time to sort out phone and Internet, and make you feel that you should be grateful that they choose to serve you at all.
'Some parts of the world' seems a strange way to refer to BT.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
It doesn't make grammatical sense to me because it links a pronoun to the infinitive. In English something like "We to fight to the end"
WIlliamGlenn's point as well.
I don't know if French speakers abbreviate for Twitter and if so, how. But I did copy it from the tweet.
Edit: can't find the Tweet to double check, maybe it was a bad quote.
#BREAKING Trump is requesting congressional intel committees to determine whether the Obama adm. abused its investigative powers in 2016 https://t.co/6gUQtxJSpJ
Obama's plan to hang around Washington and agitate against Trump was never going to work. The message couldn't be clearer , piss off Barry or else.
You don't get to billions of pounds via a few well-paid people, as much as I agree their remuneration was extortionate.
However having spoken to people who work in Brussels, most of their income - and pensions - are from national governments to begin with. I haven't yet seen how the €60bn breaks down but I am interested as to how the Commission came up with it.
I was referring to slashing all such pensions - I assume they all are as extortionate pro rata as presumably they are based on the same EU schemes. It's happening in the US and will soon happen here anyway in terms of public sector schemes - particularly the unfunded schemes in central government.
If the argument for much of this £60 billion is 'future pension liabilities' isn't the answer simply to cut the pensions so much of that bill disappears.
It would be nice as you say to see a breakdown of the £60 bn figure - if that is just our share one wonders what the future cost to the entire EU will be of these EU bureaucrats pensions? It could reach not far off a trillion euros now and more over time - really?!
My best guess is that there will be an enforceable figure of less than €60 billion in the Separation Agreement but we will be able to pay it down over time in return for "access". Both sides accept we need access. The amount of access won't change the total figure but it may determine the rate of pay down. Theresa May can then claim there was no one-off payment and the access charges are less than our previous EU membership fees. The EU gets that enforceable figure, albeit it won't ever be enforced.
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
I'd see transition payments for an adjustment period as well. But not a payment for access per se
The only way I could see a payment for access working is if it were paid by banks in exchange for a proper full single market in financial services. Maybe the govt would be so kind as to reduce exceptional taxes on banks at the same time. That way the govt pays nothing but the British have to pay billions. Win-win.
If financial institutions wish to pay for access to the single market they would be entitled to set those costs off as a business expense and so reduce their tax liability.
Just as any business or individual can already do for membership of trade organisations.
But they shouldn't have a specific tax cut to recompense them for this expense.
Rather the extra expense would be effectively paid for by their customers in the countries they are paying to have access to.
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
For some kinds of health issue, the NHS has practically broken down in some areas of Scotland.
Which ones? And are there are reasons for the rise in mortality? ....... and I don’t mean lack of doctors or whatever. I mean health issues.
NHS dentistry in most of the Western Isles. A third of the population are being refused registration. Theoretically they could hunt for an NHS dentist on the mainland, but typically that would mean going out at 6am and getting back at 9pm, with around nine hours of travel by land and sea in between, for each appointment. Even those who are registered are sometimes kept waiting indefinitely for appointments - up to 18 months in some cases. Registration refusees are advised only to show up at the emergency service if painkillers aren't working and their sleep is being affected. Having constant toothache isn't sufficient. Then it's a quick extraction or three, and any other problems in their gobs aren't even looked at.
I don't know about the mortality, although there must be reasons for it. A massive spike to double the rate in England and Wales surely can't be down to a slightly greater preference north of the border, on average, for fatty foods.
Not wishing to belittle the inhabitants of the Western Isles, but a non-lethal problem affecting 0.5% of the Scottish population is hardly evidence of an imminent collapse
I suppose one should always try to differentiate between local circumstances and systemic failure.
#BREAKING Trump is requesting congressional intel committees to determine whether the Obama adm. abused its investigative powers in 2016 https://t.co/6gUQtxJSpJ
Scotland is facing an unprecedented mortality crisis, according to newly released figures which reveal that, in the past three years, life expectancy has failed to rise for the first time since records were published in 1861.
Contributing partly to the trend was a massive spike in mortality in 2015 when more people died than in any other single year since the Second World War. The rate was almost twice as high as in England and Wales, which together experienced a 50-year high in their mortality rate.
For some kinds of health issue, the NHS has practically broken down in some areas of Scotland.
Which ones? And are there are reasons for the rise in mortality? ....... and I don’t mean lack of doctors or whatever. I mean health issues.
h there must be reasons for it. A massive spike to double the rate in England and Wales surely can't be down to a slightly greater preference north of the border, on average, for fatty foods.
Utter bollox, I see local dentists advertising for NHS patients, do you live on Rockall you cretinous halfwit.
How helpful to a patient in the Western Isles is a Dentist in Ayrshire? Who is the cretinous half wit?
I know exactly
A severe shortage of dentists on Lewis is forcing islanders to seek treatment on the mainland.
Waiting lists have been frozen on the island and unregistered patients can only receive treatment in emergencies. The equivalent of six full-time dentists work in Stornoway and the town's £4.7m dental centre, which opened in 2011 and boasts seven purpose-built surgeries, is underused.
Islander Margaret Murray has launched a petition urging the Scottish Government to intervene.
"The only way we can register as NHS dental patients at the moment is to travel away from the island, to a town such as Inverness," she said.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
It doesn't make grammatical sense to me because it links a pronoun to the infinitive. In English something like "We to fight to the end"
WIlliamGlenn's point as well.
I don't know if French speakers abbreviate for Twitter and if so, how. But I did copy it from the tweet.
Edit: can't find the Tweet to double check, maybe it was a bad quote.
Yes, I think they missed a word, in this case va ---- On va se battre au bout. We will fight to the end.
I have this problem too, where I drop words when I type, so I have to go back and add them in. Is that something I should be worried about?
"It is because you are here today that we will carry Fillon to victory."
So the question facing me primarily is whether Juppé can mount a hostile takeover.
Fillon is staying on the ballot I think. And he clearly still has a hardcore of support. If both FIllon and Juppe are on the ballot then neither makes it to R2.
"It is because you are here today that we will carry Fillon to victory."
So the question facing me primarily is whether Juppé can mount a hostile takeover.
Fillon is staying on the ballot I think. And he clearly still has a hardcore of support. If both FIllon and Juppe are on the ballot then neither makes it to R2.
Having them both in the race is surely a pitch to defy political gravity. Usually my sense is that such feats rarely stand.
p.s. I feel sorry for Bayrou if that happens!
p.p.s I wonder if Juppé could endorse Macron IIF the LR establishment disowns Fillon.
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
I have a problem as you do with Juppé-on-his-own polls, but surely Juppé and Fillon on the ballot kills any chance of either of them making it.
Actually you were the one that stopped me really dropping Fillon. We shall see..
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
I honestly don't know about your general point but Macron is especially quick to point out En Marche! is a movement and not a party (only on PB, eh)!!
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
Yep I think he may well slightly underperform his polling. Of course that may well be enough for him to ultimately win (And I think he is rightly favourite now) but it is psychologically tricky for people to cross a new party in the ballot box.
BBC Archive #Onthisday 1965: Here's one for fans of retro grumbling, as people moan about the telephone service https://t.co/imJoPBMWJs
I'm afraid I did laugh at their acronym for 'subscriber trunk dialling'. An interesting example of how things change over time!
Fascinating as well to see how many of those comments could be applied to cable broadband today.
I still call them STD codes. Am I the only one? Please don't go making me feel old
That’s what I call them. However, I have only just learnt that it stands for 'subscriber trunk dialling'.
Every day is a school day on PB!
In the (really) olden days, calling outside your area meant a call to the 'operator', an actual human who would literally patch (on a board in front of them, with cables and jacks) your long-distance call through to the recipient. STD meant that by dialling a certain code the subscriber could do it by themselves.
An older version of automation leading to redundancy of semi-skilled jobs, As it were.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
I honestly don't know about your general point but Macron is especially quick to point out En Marche! is a movement and not a party (only on PB, eh)!!
So does that mean they won't be putting up candidates in the parliamentary election?
@another_richard: How much will the EU pay to access the UK market ?
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
It will be between £5bn and £6bn IMHO. Large enough reduction that May can claim a meaningful victory (especially from the gross figure) but not so large it is difficult for the other members to fill
There will be no specific payment for access. What we will.pay - and I think willingly -will be for participation in specific programmes concerning science and education. Since we have decided against membership of the single market and the EEA then there is no reason for us to make a contribution other than for those specific programmes.
I'd see transition payments for an adjustment period as well. But not a payment for access per se
The only way I could see a payment for access working is if it were paid by banks in exchange for a proper full single market in financial services. Maybe the govt would be so kind as to reduce exceptional taxes on banks at the same time. That way the govt pays nothing but the British have to pay billions. Win-win.
If financial institutions wish to pay for access to the single market they would be entitled to set those costs off as a business expense and so reduce their tax liability.
Just as any business or individual can already do for membership of trade organisations.
But they shouldn't have a specific tax cut to recompense them for this expense.
Rather the extra expense would be effectively paid for by their customers in the countries they are paying to have access to.
Agree, the tax cut would be of the "bankers' bonus tax". Banks who wished to trade in the EU could pay (if they wished, and if the price was right) for EU market access. Banks based in the UK would be free to pay their staff whatever the company and employee agreed between themselves.
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
I honestly don't know about your general point but Macron is especially quick to point out En Marche! is a movement and not a party (only on PB, eh)!!
I think it's significant that he already has more grassroots nominations from elected representatives than Hamon.
How much would be saved if we simply cut the current and future pensions for UK nationals who worked for the EU - presumably part of what we would be paying for - post Brexit.
Lord Kinnock receives a £100k annual index linked pension alone for just 7 years work in Brussels. Lord Mandy and Baroness Ashton also have big pensions for just four years work way in excess of UK public sector equivalents. Baroness Ashton's pension is based on an EU salary which I believe was equivalent to what President Obama and HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State were paid at the same time COMBINED!
Couldn't we just slash these pensions to the level they would have got as UK MPs or civil servants on the grounds of 'they cost too much and are extortionate anyway'. Let Mandelson and Kinnock take us to court if they don't like it.
They would sue us, and we would lose. The courts do not look kindly on those who attempt to welch on their pension obligations.
Bvetter French speakers: when Fillon's campaign says "On se battre jusqu'au bout" my reading is "we are fighting to the end" - but could it be past tense, or in anticipation of the end being soon?
No, it's present tense.
So he's saying "We do fight to the end", in other words he's continuing his campaign.
Subtle political language must be very difficult to translate.
@Thewhiterabbit I don't think its inconceivable FIllon makes it to round 2. The high polling of Juppe in the theoretical polls is a bit generic republican vs Hillary. He could well outperform his polling. I've not gone mad backing him, but I think those that have laid him at high prices have a fair chance to be up shit creek.
Is there a difficulty for the pollsters when it comes to estimating Macron's support? I'm not an expert on their methodology, but is it difficult to weight support based on past votes given that En Marche! is a new party?
I honestly don't know about your general point but Macron is especially quick to point out En Marche! is a movement and not a party (only on PB, eh)!!
I think it's significant that he already has more grassroots nominations from elected representatives than Hamon.
Comments
Our military has been turned into a joke.
Nothing. We pay them as we're leaving the block and that reflects our relative bargaining strengths. Neither side can realistically walk away, but it's even less realistic for us - if that makes sense.
Currently the UK does not accept we have residual obligations; the EU side doesn't accept payment is linked to the ongoing relationship. Both sides have to move. The key figure I think is £8 billion a year, which is our current net contribution. The new figure will have to be less than that, but it may not be a lot less. At least to begin with. There's a possibility of renegotiation later.
1) by taking on the liabilities and assuming the role of a continuing state it also took on most of the liquid assets and prestige abroad, including the UN SC seat;
2) repudiating its debts would have meant the instant loss of access to credit abroad, which was desperately needed as the economy was in full-scale meltdown. (Gorbachev and even the USSR might have survived if the US had made him a loan in April.) England is also living beyond its means and would be unable to cut off access to international markets by effectively defaulting (as nobody would believe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could carry the UK's debts alone). Scotland as a much smaller country and not vital to U.K. prosperity would be a different matter.
As an aside, ironically the situation in the USSR in 1991 was similar to the situation the Provisional Government had faced in 1917 when it decided not to repudiate the Tsar's huge debts and continue with the war to keep credit lines from Britain and France open. Eventually Lenin after seizing power defaulted on those debts - ultimately of course Yeltsin had to do the same although he achieved by incompetence what Lenin achieved on principle.
From the ONS in England and Wales
"The provisional number of deaths registered in the UK in 2015 was 602,782; a rise of 5.7% compared with 2014.
In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, provisional figures suggest the number of deaths in 2015 increased by 6.2% and 5.9% respectively.
Similar increases in deaths have been reported within Europe, with France reporting a rise of 7.3%, Spain 6.7%, Denmark 2.4% and Switzerland 5.2%; some of these figures are provisional
"Conservative politicians will propose an alternative to presidential candidate Francois Fillon, a senior politician from The Republicans party said, suggesting that Alain Juppe was the only option.
"In the coming hours, we will propose an initiative," Christian Estrosi, a close ally of former President Nicolas Sarkozy, told BFM TV, adding that it would be Monday morning.
"We do not have the time to debate who has the most talent. I don't think any of the forty-somethings in our political movement, who have talent, can take on the role to bring us together."
He said the initiative would be led by himself and other party heavyweights including Xavier Bertrand and Valerie Pecresse.
"The easiest thing obviously ... is the person who came second in the primaries and that quite simply is Alain Juppe," he said. "
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/French-conservative-party-heavyweights-to-push-for-Fillon-alternative-483267
Larger business is usually ok as they need the accounting systems in place anyway.
It tends to affect the smaller businesses and start-ups, the ones who should be concentrating on becoming successful and creating jobs, not worrying about bureaucracy.
For a one man band service provider he's dealing with the VAT on all his service invoices, and the VAT on all his expenses, to include goods for resale, transport, subsistence etc. If he's lucky he might have a wife to help him (to whom he can pay £40k a year as a PA, thus maximising income tax allowances
If you go into a negotiation already planning to give things away and to demand nothing you lose out.
Its the sort of negotiating that Blair used when he gave away the Rebate not what Thatcher used to win the Rebate.
I have never understood what is so confusing about it. It involves one subtraction operation per month and one payment every three months.
Sean Spicer
(1/4) Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.
(2/4) President Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees
(3/4) exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.
(4/4) Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted.
Lord Kinnock receives a £100k annual index linked pension alone for just 7 years work in Brussels. Lord Mandy and Baroness Ashton also have big pensions for just four years work way in excess of UK public sector equivalents. Baroness Ashton's pension is based on an EU salary which I believe was equivalent to what President Obama and HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State were paid at the same time COMBINED!
Couldn't we just slash these pensions to the level they would have got as UK MPs or civil servants on the grounds of 'they cost too much and are extortionate anyway'. Let Mandelson and Kinnock take us to court if they don't like it.
Turnip.
Waiting lists have been frozen on the island and unregistered patients can only receive treatment in emergencies. The equivalent of six full-time dentists work in Stornoway and the town's £4.7m dental centre, which opened in 2011 and boasts seven purpose-built surgeries, is underused.
Islander Margaret Murray has launched a petition urging the Scottish Government to intervene.
"The only way we can register as NHS dental patients at the moment is to travel away from the island, to a town such as Inverness," she said.
https://stv.tv/news/highlands-islands/1381394-severe-island-dentist-shortage-hits-patients-on-lewis/
BBC Archive
#Onthisday 1965: Here's one for fans of retro grumbling, as people moan about the telephone service https://t.co/imJoPBMWJs
However having spoken to people who work in Brussels, most of their income - and pensions - are from national governments to begin with. I haven't yet seen how the €60bn breaks down but I am interested as to how the Commission came up with it.
If you were so concerned about EU membership you should have opposed the moves to EverCloserUnion and the surrender negotiations conducted by Blair and Cameron.
#BREAKING Trump is requesting congressional intel committees to determine whether the Obama adm. abused its investigative powers in 2016 https://t.co/6gUQtxJSpJ
Not past tense, but doesn't exclude the possibility that the end is very near.
Paying for membership of specific programmes makes sense.
But there is no requirement to pay for free trade with a declining part of the world with which the UK has a huge current account deficit with.
Fascinating as well to see how many of those comments could be applied to cable broadband today.
I don't know if French speakers abbreviate for Twitter and if so, how. But I did copy it from the tweet.
Edit: can't find the Tweet to double check, maybe it was a bad quote.
If the argument for much of this £60 billion is 'future pension liabilities' isn't the answer simply to cut the pensions so much of that bill disappears.
It would be nice as you say to see a breakdown of the £60 bn figure - if that is just our share one wonders what the future cost to the entire EU will be of these EU bureaucrats pensions? It could reach not far off a trillion euros now and more over time - really?!
Just as any business or individual can already do for membership of trade organisations.
But they shouldn't have a specific tax cut to recompense them for this expense.
Rather the extra expense would be effectively paid for by their customers in the countries they are paying to have access to.
'Charity Dentists Filling Gaps In NHS Funding'
http://tinyurl.com/zewnzyd
'Third World’ dentistry crisis in England
http://tinyurl.com/gtab4qn
Amusingly, inevitably, there's even a Brexit angle.
'Brexit and dentistry'
http://tinyurl.com/jmw9s9x
What's he going to do when congress says "no" ?
I have this problem too, where I drop words when I type, so I have to go back and add them in. Is that something I should be worried about?
I'm not throwing good money after bad.
Soutiens !
"It is because you are here today that we will carry Fillon to victory."
So the question facing me primarily is whether Juppé can mount a hostile takeover.
p.s. I feel sorry for Bayrou if that happens!
p.p.s I wonder if Juppé could endorse Macron IIF the LR establishment disowns Fillon.
Every day is a school day on PB!
Actually you were the one that stopped me really dropping Fillon. We shall see..
Chartier making the very fair point that Fillon won the primary of the right !
I can't offer any guarantees but I hope I'm right on this !
LOVE
HARRY
An older version of automation leading to redundancy of semi-skilled jobs, As it were.
I don't fancy Juppé for my winnings (unless he displaces Le Pen completely!) in which case I suppose I want Fillon in.
Defiant tweeting coming from Fillon.
https://presidentielle2017.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/les-parrainages/parrainages-par-candidat/
Subtle political language must be very difficult to translate.
http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/live-video/
It's a tribute act to General De Gaulle.
I need to write the next thread PDQ.