This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
It means we're drowning in debt. I can borrow £20k buy a BMW and impress the neighbours but........
Fine, all those trade and travel agreements torn up? The French impose full blocks on the chunnel and ferries - How far past London do you want to see the trucks pile up on the roads. As for export controls from the EU to a country which does not have any valid diplomatic ties, yep, that's going to work very well? Then there are all those horrible Europeans, having to go home leaving our hospitals, nursing homes and carers understaffed, so if you end up in hospital or in care, there will be no one to wipe your backside. Yeah, go ahead, you walk away....
I don't think we will walk away. But the EU certainly will.
They will then blame us for refusing to accept two parallel legal systems in our country like the ones that work so well in Israel/Palestine.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle.
Autocorrect sucks, doesn't it?
I agree with your point, btw. One of the first things that told me matters had gone very far awry in the banking world was when the financial adviser who was trying to persuade me to get my first credit card told me quite seriously that they were great, and she knew this because she was maxed out on three of them.
!!!!!!!
It isn't as though she worked for Northern Rock either. This was at Lloyds!
Having worked in banking (IT) since 2003 I do think things got completely out of hand with sales-driven approach, short termism and no concern for the customer or the risks. (As an aside, my lefty perspective sees that as the natural destination of the neoliberal, free market, every-man-for-himself ethos, but that's another story.)
However, my experience is that this has swung back considerably recently. PPI has been very painful, not just for customers but for profits too. Last week I had a letter from a bank reducing my credit card limit (which they had arbitarily raised years ago and which I never got close too). So maybe lessons have been learned.
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
It means we're drowning in debt. I can borrow £20k buy a BMW and impress the neighbours but........
What was the savings rate in Ireland at the time of the crash?
If the great hopes of the Conservative party are Graham Brady and Jacob Cream Crackers, they're in deeper trouble than I thought.
My suggestion from the outside would be that they look in the medium term to promote those who spend less time frothing about the evils of the EU and more time talking about how the government can improve the lives of the electorate. Admittedly, right now that might be a very short list indeed.
I've always been quite impressed with James Cleverly. Any reason why someone like him has never had a top job in government?
"There is a fairly obvious response to that, in that we elect politicians and if they do not represent our views we can and should cease to elect them."
I don't disagree. The EU was a minor issue, but following the referendum, it is now a major issue
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
It means we're drowning in debt. I can borrow £20k buy a BMW and impress the neighbours but........
What was the savings rate in Ireland at the time of the crash?
That's not at all an alarming question...
The savings rate needs to stand alongside the rate of borrowing. Think negative equity, its where we're at.
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation.
And about Radiohead.
Clearly I will need to write a couple of thread headers on music to give some PBers remedial education.
There was an interesting piece repeated on Radio 4 last night on the rise of Stadium Rock and Festivals, as one of our few remaining ecstatic collective social experiences. Some major sporting events are the same. Worth a listen:
Corbyn's latest wacko plan is to pay teenagers £10 per hour. Its an obvious remarek that the tories spectacularly messed up the snap election campaign but they won't make the same mistake twice. The next election will again be on the economy and Corbyn's lala land promises will be examined in greater detail.
He's an egotistic campaigner who can promise the world but in a drawn out campaign he'll be exposed.
One of the great images of the 2008 local elections was John Macdonnell with his head in his hands as James Purnell spouted that same line about Cameron's party. Purnell himself later effectively admitted the line was rubbish by resigning the following year.
It
I'd argue that people didn't care because they didn't see a cat in hell's chance of him becoming PM. No-one did - until the exit poll.
2017 was the election where the safe assumption was somebody else would be voting to keep Corbyn out, so I don't have to. Very nearly an Oooooops.... there from the electorate.
You are in denial. What you need to get your head around is for many Corbyn was seen as the safer option than a Tory Majority.
safer option? do you really believe that ?
Yes. Absolutely.
For me personally, the repeated rhetoric of "no deal is better than a bad deal" was pure poison. It demonstrated that in the Tory party Brexit ideologues were in charge and the conservative pragmatists were nowhere.
On Brexit, the key economic issue of our generation, the pragmatism offered by Starmer was/is a far safer bet.
This alone overrode any doubts I might have had about Corbyn.
Yep - No Deal is better than a Bad Deal promised to inflict huge and longlasting damage to the UK economy. A government actively proposing such a prospect was showing itself to be utterly irresponsible and profoundly stupid.
Nonsense. It was part of strengthening the UK's negotiating position by making it clear the Government was prepared to walk away.
You think? That's not how I negotiate. If I am going to talk to someone I want to make it clear I am worth talking to because I am serious about going through with it. If you say you are prepared to walk away as your opening gambit the other party will question if they want to invest any time in the discussion if you are already planning to go elsewhere.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle.
Autocorrect sucks, doesn't it?
I agree with your point, btw. One of the first things that told me matters had gone very far awry in the banking world was when the financial adviser who was trying to persuade me to get my first credit card told me quite seriously that they were great, and she knew this because she was maxed out on three of them.
!!!!!!!
It isn't as though she worked for Northern Rock either. This was at Lloyds!
Having worked in banking (IT) since 2003 I do think things got completely out of hand with sales-driven approach, short termism and no concern for the customer or the risks. (As an aside, my lefty perspective sees that as the natural destination of the neoliberal, free market, every-man-for-himself ethos, but that's another story.)
However, my experience is that this has swung back considerably recently. PPI has been very painful, not just for customers but for profits too. Last week I had a letter from a bank reducing my credit card limit (which they had arbitarily raised years ago and which I never got close too). So maybe lessons have been learned.
They keep raising mine. And I keep ordering them to reduce it. I do not want to have a credit card limit above my monthly net salary and they were trying to bounce me into taking double that.
I got really quite nasty with them the third time they did it and told them if they did it again I would close all my accounts.
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
After 12 months, the economic damage is beginning to show too. The pound has lost 14% of its value against the euro; the governor of the Bank of England says “weaker real income growth” cannot be prevented. Inflation is rising. Brexit has made Britons poorer.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
There is no other structural reason to help the UK economy with productivity so dire. Apart from the periodic slide of the pound, of course.
You overstate your case. No deal would certainly be very disruptive, but it would not be catastrophic.
I think you need to have a lie-down. Your posts on here are becoming almost as hyperbolic as your tweets over on Twitter, which are becoming ever more hyperventilating and shrill.
Seriously CR, you would do well to come to terms that people legitimately feel like this. The Tory macho posturing on negotiating positions was not only bullshit, it was toxic.
Try to understand how it might have looked to people who do not trust the tories. There were no reassuring words whatsoever.
Since you trust the Tories, it din't matter to you. But the hard line they took (and to an extent continue to take) was polarizing.
Toxic to the extent that we got 14m votes...
And pushed Labour to their second-highest total in 50 years. Under Corbyn.
It must be hard to be one of the few Tories that get it. Keep pluggin away, they'll catch up eventually. It's folk like you that ultimately make the difference about whether your party recovers or not.
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
After 12 months, the economic damage is beginning to show too. The pound has lost 14% of its value against the euro; the governor of the Bank of England says “weaker real income growth” cannot be prevented. Inflation is rising. Brexit has made Britons poorer.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
The govt I support?
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
You think? That's not how I negotiate. If I am going to talk to someone I want to make it clear I am worth talking to because I am serious about going through with it. If you say you are prepared to walk away as your opening gambit the other party will question if they want to invest any time in the discussion if you are already planning to go elsewhere.
In fairness to May, that's how you negotiate with a sane, sensible person who wants to talk to you and desires a good outcome. She's negotiating with the EU who have only ever made grudging concessions when practically forced to at gunpoint and then usually reneged on them at the first opportunity.
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
Things that people claim are 'unsustainable' have a habit of going on for a lot longer than anyone imagines.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation.
And about Radiohead.
Clearly I will need to write a couple of thread headers on music to give some PBers remedial education.
There was an interesting piece repeated on Radio 4 last night on the rise of Stadium Rock and Festivals, as one of our few remaining ecstatic collective social experiences. Some major sporting events are the same. Worth a listen:
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
After 12 months, the economic damage is beginning to show too. The pound has lost 14% of its value against the euro; the governor of the Bank of England says “weaker real income growth” cannot be prevented. Inflation is rising. Brexit has made Britons poorer.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
The only way to reduce the debt bubble, and to get rid of the housing bubble is to let inflation rip at 1970's style rates. The BoE should have a 10% target for 5 years or so.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation.
And about Radiohead.
Clearly I will need to write a couple of thread headers on music to give some PBers remedial education.
There was an interesting piece repeated on Radio 4 last night on the rise of Stadium Rock and Festivals, as one of our few remaining ecstatic collective social experiences. Some major sporting events are the same. Worth a listen:
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
The govt I support?
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
Not agreeing with you does not equate to having a worrying state of mind, I'm afraid. Far from it, in fact.
Some Tories here appear to be in denial. They're still on track for their landslide, albeit at the next election or maybe the one that follows.
I think the reason is that the fundamentals still haven't changed. Corbyn is still haemorrhaging support outside the big urban centres even as he piles up votes inside them.... (snip)
Indeed, in some significant ways the election has moved things in the Tories' favour. Labour have effectively conceded on immigration and even more astonishingly on benefit cuts (which their manifesto committed to keeping). They have also switched from offering help to the poorest to offering bungs for the middle classes (free school meals for all and free university tuition help the better off, not the poorest). It's hard to see that ending well for them. Claims their manifesto was costed do not stand up to scrutiny - they provided figures but as I repeatedly proved here their figures were based on a number of completely wrong assumptions (particularly around taxes on private schools which would have bankrupted the state sector, but also their figures on corporation tax which seemed to naively believe higher rates automatically equals more income). Under any leader other than Corbyn these concessions would have been absolutely disastrous. One of the more surreal things about this campaign was the way Corbyn, the supposed man of principle who cared about the poor, opposed violence and war (or claimed to, anyway) believed in fairness and would never pursue power for its own sake ruthlessly ditched all his principles in the naked pursuit of power.
Therefore, the most important thing is he's also old. It's hard to see an election before 2019. Will he really go through that again aged 70? Well, he's got a good diet, takes plenty of exercise and looks pretty fit to me. However, the older you get the less energy you have, and that will be doubly true if he spends that time fighting his own party. And no other leader will be able to get away with this, while inheriting a party still intellectually exhausted and politically divided.
Those are all very good points, but...
It is a great deal easier to paper over divisions and gloss over policy contradictions in opposition than it is in government. How many voices within Labour are going to critique Corbyn now ? It's not a principled position, but sometimes oppositions can avoid hard choices completely; governments can't. It's quite conceivable that Labour go into the next election with every appearance of being united behind a similar set of shiny promises as last time (however vacuous), against a Conservative party struggling with an economy flirting with recession while trying to sell an unpopular/controversial Brexit deal.
Nothing is inevitable, but a Corbyn government is possible.
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
After 12 months, the economic damage is beginning to show too. The pound has lost 14% of its value against the euro; the governor of the Bank of England says “weaker real income growth” cannot be prevented. Inflation is rising. Brexit has made Britons poorer.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvementit was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
I agree. Luckily, the government can give this its full attention ...
The Brexit powers and the Tory offering on trade, immigration, fisheries and agriculture, might be quite popular in GE2022 under a new leader, particularly if the economy picks up.
After 12 months, the economic damage is beginning to show too. The pound has lost 14% of its value against the euro; the governor of the Bank of England says “weaker real income growth” cannot be prevented. Inflation is rising. Brexit has made Britons poorer.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvementit was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
I agree. Luckily, the government can give this its full attention ...
According to Betfair the government is not yet formed!
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
The govt I support?
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
Not agreeing with you does not equate to having a worrying state of mind, I'm afraid. Far from it, in fact.
No, but spouting utter nonsense about "the party you support" suggests a willingness to bend the truth
It is a great deal easier to paper over divisions and gloss over policy contradictions in opposition than it is in government. How many voices within Labour are going to critique Corbyn now ? It's not a principled position, but sometimes oppositions can avoid hard choices completely; governments can't. It's quite conceivable that Labour go into the next election with every appearance of being united behind a similar set of shiny promises as last time (however vacuous), against a Conservative party struggling with an economy flirting with recession while trying to sell an unpopular/controversial Brexit deal.
Nothing is inevitable, but a Corbyn government is possible.
True, but that is the interesting paradox. A Corbyn government is possible despite their precarious position, but it would shatter the party entriely.
They can stay in opposition, which is where they belong at present, and have a difficult time blandly ignoring their problems and probably not returning to power for years, or go into government where the party could shatter five ways in three months.
The likelihood of a new Tory leader in advance of any election plus Corbyn's age and the political volatility doesn't make 4/1 on him as next PM that attractive a bet, IMO
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
You overstate your case. No deal would certainly be very disruptive, but it would not be catastrophic.
I think you need to have a lie-down. Your posts on here are becoming almost as hyperbolic as your tweets over on Twitter, which are becoming ever more hyperventilating and shrill.
Seriously CR, you would do well to come to terms that people legitimately feel like this. The Tory macho posturing on negotiating positions was not only bullshit, it was toxic.
Try to understand how it might have looked to people who do not trust the tories. There were no reassuring words whatsoever.
Since you trust the Tories, it didn't matter to you. But the hard line they took (and to an extent continue to take) was polarizing.
I am interested in both listening and understanding.
But, with respect, Jonathan, you always attack the Tories regardless of what they say or do, so I have to take what you say with a pinch of salt as well.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
The govt I support?
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
Not agreeing with you does not equate to having a worrying state of mind, I'm afraid. Far from it, in fact.
No, but spouting utter nonsense about "the party you support" suggests a willingness to bend the truth
What stops you being a Tory? Are they too left wing for you? :-)
Yay! I have got to 100 posts and nobody has accused me of being a johnny-come-lately momentum-stooge clictavist (yet)! I'm only 53,000 and something behind TSE now.
Thank-you PBers for the great site and thought-provoking debate!
You have to earn that accolade
Welcome though. Even if you are wrong about most things
the aggressive strategy we see Brussels’ pursuing – De Housse calls their demands “manifestly excessive” – in the above disputes gives us no reason to think they’d have done anything with such a concession from London but bank it – and then use the fate of British nationals in Europe as leverage on all these issues and more besides.
Very interesting reading, especially for those who want to know what's going wrong. As expected, it's much more complex than just 'privatisation!' or 'unions'.
He's an egotistic campaigner who can promise the world but in a drawn out campaign he'll be exposed.
It
I'd argue that people didn't care because they didn't see a cat in hell's chance of him becoming PM. No-one did - until the exit poll.
2017 was the election where the safe assumption was somebody else would be voting to keep Corbyn out, so I don't have to. Very nearly an Oooooops.... there from the electorate.
You are in denial. What you need to get your head around is for many Corbyn was seen as the safer option than a Tory Majority.
safer option? do you really believe that ?
Yes.
Yep - No Deal is better than a Bad Deal promised to inflict huge and longlasting damage to the UK economy. A government actively proposing such a prospect was showing itself to be utterly irresponsible and profoundly stupid.
Nonsense. It was part of strengthening the UK's negotiating position by making it clear the Government was prepared to walk away.
You think? That's not how I negotiate. If I am going to talk to someone I want to make it clear I am worth talking to because I am serious about going through with it. If you say you are prepared to walk away as your opening gambit the other party will question if they want to invest any time in the discussion if you are already planning to go elsewhere.
I've just had an offer accepted on a house that my wife and I intend to buy at £70k below its initial asking price.
Why?
I made my offer, which wasn't amazing, but it was fair, and I gave my reasons for it. I made it clear I'd like the house, but would walk away if it didn't fit for the other party, and we were looking at other houses both that weekend and the following weekend.
If I'd said it was my dream house, and I would pay whatever was necessary to secure it, I'd have paid a lot more.
"You might want to read the government figures and projections that were published with the last budget."
Let's ignore govt projections and take your assertion to its logical conclusion.
If debt and immigration equals prosperity why don't we all borrow £1m, open the borders to all and increase the population to 150m.
As somebody else points out, you are becoming increasingly hyperbolic and irrational.
You seem to think I believe it is a good idea to be in the state we are. I don't. I am merely observing that it's where we're at - and that the government you support is projecting it will stay that way.
The govt I support?
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
Not agreeing with you does not equate to having a worrying state of mind, I'm afraid. Far from it, in fact.
Others not agreeing with you on Brexit makes them stupid, though, doesn't it?
Very interesting reading, especially for those who want to know what's going wrong. As expected, it's much more complex than just 'privatisation!' or 'unions'.
Ugh. "Office ,for Rail and Road". We're the "Office of Rail and Road".
Have Labour actually said what their "unilateral guarantee for EU citizens" would have consisted of? Just because it might have been unilateral, doesn't mean the EU would have accepted it.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
When the Tories tried new approaches to reducing debt, they were just attacked as "nasty cuts" by opponents, media, and protesters.
I'm not sure there is an answer to Britain's problems that will be acceptable to the people, and only after PM Corbyn rips the economy apart will people wake up... and find another way to blame the Tories.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
More accurately, Osborne hoped to sort out the Government's problematic rising debt in one parliament, whilst also hoping to keep a lid on discontent by being relaxed about personal debt and rising asset prices meantime. The most charitable interpretation would be that once government debt was falling it could focus more attention on the rest of its problems.
Of course, in reality, the first part wasn't achieved (and was probably never achievable, politically) and discontent has now risen to the point at which no government has any options that are both economically credible and politically feasible, other than to run around spinning the plates whilst hoping something turns up, or that their time expires and they can hand the problem on to the next lot.
And, yet, manufacturing orders are at their highest in almost 30 years, unemployment is at a 40-year low, the FTSE is clocking record highs, and the economy is still growing.
Inflation meanwhile is at the historically eyewatering level of 2.9%, and the pound is still comfortably worth more against the euro than it was during the Great Recession.
Errh, you do realise that when a tory is quoting a Guardian comment they're scraping the barrel. I wouldn't bother replying tbh.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation. So far, that's not tipped the economy into recession because (a) business has made up some of the slack, and (b) the UK consumer is willing to borrow to maintain spending.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
Things that people claim are 'unsustainable' have a habit of going on for a lot longer than anyone imagines.
Indeed and sadly so.
Its less than three months until the tenth anniversary of Northern Rock's problems.
I thought afterwards "well at least this will stop the obsession with house prices and people spending money they haven't got".
A decade on and government debt is more than a trillion quid higher.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
the aggressive strategy we see Brussels’ pursuing – De Housse calls their demands “manifestly excessive” – in the above disputes gives us no reason to think they’d have done anything with such a concession from London but bank it – and then use the fate of British nationals in Europe as leverage on all these issues and more besides.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
The problem is Southam that even if we accept that - and it would be quite a big concession - it's becoming very clear the EU won't. They seem to have decided not to give 2.54cm on any subject. Which inevitably means no deal as there is no way on God's green earth that what they are proposing right now would pass the Commons.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
The EU27 want to ensure that EU citizens' rights will be protected post-Brexit and not subject to change. They suggest the way to do that is to use the ECJ. Clearly, the UK disagrees. The issue now is to find a way to assuage the legitimate fears the EU has (of course, we should have the same fears for UK citizens in the EU 27). The obvious solution is a new body whose remit is to be the final arbiter of the terms of the final agreement.
Very interesting reading, especially for those who want to know what's going wrong. As expected, it's much more complex than just 'privatisation!' or 'unions'.
Blimey:
If these funds cannot be identified, then I recommend that a decision must be taken by the DfT to reduce the Thameslink 2018 specification to a level that the existing system reliability can support. Such a decision should be taken in January, 2017. If it was decided to do this, there are significant implications for paragraphs 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 below: less rolling stock, drivers and depot facilities will be needed for Thameslink, and older rolling stock can be withdrawn quicker. But Thameslink will remain at 12 tph – half of what has been envisaged under the Thameslink programme.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation.
And about Radiohead.
Clearly I will need to write a couple of thread headers on music to give some PBers remedial education.
There was an interesting piece repeated on Radio 4 last night on the rise of Stadium Rock and Festivals, as one of our few remaining ecstatic collective social experiences. Some major sporting events are the same. Worth a listen:
We'll see by the EU's actions what its desires are. If it genuinely wants the UK to stay, then a small slice of red meat (mildly increased rebate, say) would work well. If it wants a good deal, a modest compromise would suffice.
If it tries to impose EU law on the UK after we leave the EU and have the ECJ overrule British courts then that is 100% unacceptable, and proof positive of an EU that wishes to harm the UK.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Some have had to. China is a good example. They had no choice as the British had advanced weaponry and they didn't.
But given the dreadful longer term damage such things cause to both sides, it is not something we should accept even when the nutters on the Commission are proposing it if there is any alternative at all.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
When the Tories tried new approaches to reducing debt, they were just attacked as "nasty cuts" by opponents, media, and protesters.
I'm not sure there is an answer to Britain's problems that will be acceptable to the people, and only after PM Corbyn rips the economy apart will people wake up... and find another way to blame the Tories.
The problem was that the Cameron and Osborne thought that austerity was only for other people.
When it came to their pet projects - Overseas Aid, Middle-Eastern warmongering, HS2, Hinkley C, triple lock pensions, free schools for example - increasing debt to fund them was not an issue.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
The problem is Southam that even if we accept that - and it would be quite a big concession - it's becoming very clear the EU won't. They seem to have decided not to give 2.54cm on any subject. Which inevitably means no deal as there is no way on God's green earth that what they are proposing right now would pass the Commons.
It's not at all clear to me that the EU27 would scupper a deal over this. They just want to ensure that the UK sticks to what is agreed. We should be equally as concerned. A new judicial forum is the obvious answer.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial crisis.
Now, it's possible that the UK consumer will be able increase their debts forever, that the savings rate will get ever more negative, and that the rest of the world be willing to fund the resulting current account deficit.
But it's not very likely. The danger is that any slowdown in the economy starts a viscous cycle. Consumer worry about the future, they decide that it would be safer to spend less and save more for safety reasons, the economy slows and jobs are lost. Consumers worry about the future...
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
More accurately, Osborne hoped to sort out the Government's problematic rising debt in one parliament, whilst also hoping to keep a lid on discontent by being relaxed about personal debt and rising asset prices meantime. The most charitable interpretation would be that once government debt was falling it could focus more attention on the rest of its problems.
Of course, in reality, the first part wasn't achieved (and was probably never achievable, politically) and discontent has now risen to the point at which no government has any options that are both economically credible and politically feasible, other than to run around spinning the plates whilst hoping something turns up, or that their time expires and they can hand the problem on to the next lot.
The problem with increased personal debt and rising asset prices is that it represents a huge wealth transfer from the young to the old and from those on average means to the very rich.
The socioeconomic effects of that is now bearing electoral fruit.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
The EU27 want to ensure that EU citizens' rights will be protected post-Brexit and not subject to change. They suggest the way to do that is to use the ECJ. Clearly, the UK disagrees. The issue now is to find a way to assuage the legitimate fears the EU has (of course, we should have the same fears for UK citizens in the EU 27). The obvious solution is a new body whose remit is to be the final arbiter of the terms of the final agreement.
Given we're the only major country in the EU not to have experienced government extremism in the last century, we should be a lot more concerned about them than they about us.
Have Labour actually said what their "unilateral guarantee for EU citizens" would have consisted of? Just because it might have been unilateral, doesn't mean the EU would have accepted it.
The one the Leave campaign suggested would be fine.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's not at all clear to me that the EU27 would scupper a deal over this. They just want to ensure that the UK sticks to what is agreed. We should be equally as concerned. A new judicial forum is the obvious answer.
Who has broken more deals over the last 40 years? The EU or the UK?
Who said halfway through the referendum campaign that the new agreements were not binding and would be ignored?
Think that over for a bit.
I am not worried that even a Corbyn government would renege on its deal with the EU if we can reach one. But I wouldn't trust the EU and I will certainly assume any court linked to them cannot be trusted to be impartial. Yes, I have considered that sentence carefully.
And the knowledge that leaving without a deal would be a disaster for us as a country is also what led me to vote Remain.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
No-one suggested conceding on the role of the ECJ.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
The problem is Southam that even if we accept that - and it would be quite a big concession - it's becoming very clear the EU won't. They seem to have decided not to give 2.54cm on any subject. Which inevitably means no deal as there is no way on God's green earth that what they are proposing right now would pass the Commons.
It's not at all clear to me that the EU27 would scupper a deal over this. They just want to ensure that the UK sticks to what is agreed. We should be equally as concerned. A new judicial forum is the obvious answer.
Indeed, Mrs May may be suggesting this:
Theresa May has hinted at a compromise over the vexed issue of EU citizens’ future rights in the UK, suggesting they could be guaranteed in the international court of justice in The Hague.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
The EU27 want to ensure that EU citizens' rights will be protected post-Brexit and not subject to change. They suggest the way to do that is to use the ECJ. Clearly, the UK disagrees. The issue now is to find a way to assuage the legitimate fears the EU has (of course, we should have the same fears for UK citizens in the EU 27). The obvious solution is a new body whose remit is to be the final arbiter of the terms of the final agreement.
Given we're the only major country in the EU not to have experienced government extremism in the last century, we should be a lot more concerned about them than they about us.
Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, anyone?
Sweden? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking.)
Ireland's last real brush with extremism was also in the early 1920s up to the assassination of O'Higgins and the aftermath. Ever since then it's been a functioning democracy.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
No-one suggested conceding on the role of the ECJ.
What would we have had to negotiate with when the EU demanded it? "We accept your offer, subject to one condition....
I wish that the improvement in business conditions was providing the bulk of the support. But it's not. It's consumer borrowing that is keeping the UK economy moving. Credit card debt is up 9.7% year-over-year. That's the fastest growth rate in a decade. On a percentage of GDP basis, credit card lending is now only a smidgen below where it was on the eve of the financial
Consumer debt and immigration have been keeping the UK economy going.
Yes but neither is sustainable at current rates, economically or socially. But getting out of this debt bubble wiil be extremely hard, in both senses of the word.
It was obvious in 2010 that basing the economy on debt funded rising house prices, increasing household borrowing and ever more consumer spending had been disastrous.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
More accurately, Osborne hoped to sort out the Government's problematic rising debt in one parliament, whilst also hoping to keep a lid on discontent by being relaxed about personal debt and rising asset prices meantime. The most charitable interpretation would be that once government debt was falling it could focus more attention on the rest of its problems.
Of course, in reality, the first part wasn't achieved (and was probably never achievable, politically) and discontent has now risen to the point at which no government has any options that are both economically credible and politically feasible, other than to run around spinning the plates whilst hoping something turns up, or that their time expires and they can hand the problem on to the next lot.
The problem with increased personal debt and rising asset prices is that it represents a huge wealth transfer from the young to the old and from those on average means to the very rich.
The socioeconomic effects of that is now bearing electoral fruit.
Absolutely.
And the most remarkable thing of all is that the policy innovation at the heart of it - QE - attracts almost no political attention or discussion whatsoever.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
The EU27 want to ensure that EU citizens' rights will be protected post-Brexit and not subject to change. They suggest the way to do that is to use the ECJ. Clearly, the UK disagrees. The issue now is to find a way to assuage the legitimate fears the EU has (of course, we should have the same fears for UK citizens in the EU 27). The obvious solution is a new body whose remit is to be the final arbiter of the terms of the final agreement.
Given we're the only major country in the EU not to have experienced government extremism in the last century, we should be a lot more concerned about them than they about us.
Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, anyone?
Sweden? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking.)
Ireland's last real brush with extremism was also in the early 1920s up to the assassination of O'Higgins and the aftermath. Ever since then it's been a functioning democracy.
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
The answer is that it's a bit of both.
Firstly, the insatiable demand for consumer credit in the UK starves business of bank funding. Since leaving fund management, I've become CFO of a fast growing technology business. This is a company that will leave this year doing around $100m of revenue. Our bank is Barclays. Do you know how much overdraft they'll give us? £150,000. The banks would rather lend money to consumers with credit cards (interest rate 20+%) than to businesses.
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving. Now, in a perfect world, you let exports grow while leaving consumption flat (which is the old fashioned definition of austerity). In the real world, savings rates normally move all in a rush as consumers stop spending to shore up their personal balance sheets.
Scott is not right about a lot, but he's correct that the UK economy is flirting dangerously close to a consumer led recession. Income growth is now below inflation.
And about Radiohead.
Clearly I will need to write a couple of thread headers on music to give some PBers remedial education.
There was an interesting piece repeated on Radio 4 last night on the rise of Stadium Rock and Festivals, as one of our few remaining ecstatic collective social experiences. Some major sporting events are the same. Worth a listen:
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Er - yes, you did. You said that we cannot ever have no deal. So the EU just insist on the role of the ECJ and to get a deal according to you we have to concede.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
No-one suggested conceding on the role of the ECJ.
What would we have had to negotiate with when the EU demanded it? "We accept your offer, subject to one condition....
No-one was suggesting acceptance of the EU proposal. There was no EU proposal when the cabinet discussed guaranteeing EU citizens' rights.
Don't worry, those who constantly say that there has to be a deal seem to be perfectly happy for the UK to be humiliated in this way. Frankly they are not arguing a position of principle, or a matter of judgement. They just want their own nation to be subjected to totally unacceptable terms because they think in some way it would justify their position that we could never leave the EU.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
The EU27 want to ensure that EU citizens' rights will be protected post-Brexit and not subject to change. They suggest the way to do that is to use the ECJ. Clearly, the UK disagrees. The issue now is to find a way to assuage the legitimate fears the EU has (of course, we should have the same fears for UK citizens in the EU 27). The obvious solution is a new body whose remit is to be the final arbiter of the terms of the final agreement.
Given we're the only major country in the EU not to have experienced government extremism in the last century, we should be a lot more concerned about them than they about us.
Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, anyone?
LOL, wishful thinking by Little Englanders as ever. Booted out on your arses is what will happen, slinking to the ferry terminal with tails between legs, obscurity and public anger beckoning.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
No-one suggested conceding on the role of the ECJ.
What would we have had to negotiate with when the EU demanded it? "We accept your offer, subject to one condition....
No-one was suggesting acceptance of the EU proposal. There was no EU proposal when the cabinet discussed guaranteeing EU citizens' rights.
If you're referring to Osborne's claim its pretty clear 'the Cabinet' held no such discussion.....
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
It's worth remembering we're at the start of the negotiation. We'll end up with a specific judicial authority combining UK and EU judges as the ultimate arbiter of the new EU/UK agreement - including citizens' rights.
At least we're having a negotiation - some (Osborne, Cameron, Labour) wanted to concede before we'd even triggered Article 50.
No-one suggested conceding on the role of the ECJ.
Er - yes, you did. You said that we cannot ever have no deal. So the EU just insist on the role of the ECJ and to get a deal according to you we have to concede.
Do people think Betfair is right to have ruled that Theresa May's post-election ministry is not yet formed? FWIW Wikipedia already has a page on TM's Second Ministry, formed 11 June 2017.
Let me ask you clearly. If the EU say 'no deal without ECJ jurisdiction of EU citizens within the UK after Brexit' - do you accept that deal - yes or no?
Er - yes, you did. You said that we cannot ever have no deal. So the EU just insist on the role of the ECJ and to get a deal according to you we have to concede.
Comments
They will then blame us for refusing to accept two parallel legal systems in our country like the ones that work so well in Israel/Palestine.
We're not even going to get to trade talks.
However, my experience is that this has swung back considerably recently. PPI has been very painful, not just for customers but for profits too. Last week I had a letter from a bank reducing my credit card limit (which they had arbitarily raised years ago and which I never got close too). So maybe lessons have been learned.
That's not at all an alarming question...
Time for a fresh faced backbencher.
"There is a fairly obvious response to that, in that we elect politicians and if they do not represent our views we can and should cease to elect them."
I don't disagree. The EU was a minor issue, but following the referendum, it is now a major issue
The Prime Minister has to keep Clarke, Soubry and co happy and in the commons, whilst at the same time keeping the headbangers on board.
There are plenty of others who will resent having to repeatedly trudge out to vote late at night. If a sweet job in the city beckons...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065rn84
And worth catching this spontaneous singing at Glasto. The times are a changing:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/878378379334090753
I got really quite nasty with them the third time they did it and told them if they did it again I would close all my accounts.
It's like a druggie needing a regular fix.
I'm afraid its becoming pointless discussing anything with you. I didn't vote in this election and haven't voted Conservative in decades.
Enjoy the weekend, try to spend at least a part of it away from this site, you are developing a worrying state of mind.
Radiohead have only ever done two awesome songs, Creep and Karma Police, the rest are shite.
It is a great deal easier to paper over divisions and gloss over policy contradictions in opposition than it is in government. How many voices within Labour are going to critique Corbyn now ? It's not a principled position, but sometimes oppositions can avoid hard choices completely; governments can't.
It's quite conceivable that Labour go into the next election with every appearance of being united behind a similar set of shiny promises as last time (however vacuous), against a Conservative party struggling with an economy flirting with recession while trying to sell an unpopular/controversial Brexit deal.
Nothing is inevitable, but a Corbyn government is possible.
They can stay in opposition, which is where they belong at present, and have a difficult time blandly ignoring their problems and probably not returning to power for years, or go into government where the party could shatter five ways in three months.
Yet Osborne restarted that same Brown economy.
Not only was it economic madness but the emphasis on increasing debt and increasing house prices crippled Conservative prospects among young people. By more and more as each year passed.
But, with respect, Jonathan, you always attack the Tories regardless of what they say or do, so I have to take what you say with a pinch of salt as well.
We will never win you over.
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/publication_article/eu-exaggerating-in-its-demands-for-brexit/
Welcome though. Even if you are wrong about most things
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/06/no-may-could-not-have-avoided-this-battle-over-eu-nationals.html
The Gibb report into Southern Rail's travails has been published.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619795/chris-gibb-report-southern-rail.pdf
Very interesting reading, especially for those who want to know what's going wrong. As expected, it's much more complex than just 'privatisation!' or 'unions'.
Why?
I made my offer, which wasn't amazing, but it was fair, and I gave my reasons for it. I made it clear I'd like the house, but would walk away if it didn't fit for the other party, and we were looking at other houses both that weekend and the following weekend.
If I'd said it was my dream house, and I would pay whatever was necessary to secure it, I'd have paid a lot more.
https://twitter.com/GrantTucker/status/878535146709950464
Glasshouses. Stones.
I think this Government lasts at least until April 2019. Past then, I'm not sure.
In fact, the UK public will never accept these sorts of outcomes and well get behind the Government that rejects them. No deal is not only better than no deal - it is almost inevitable.
When the Tories tried new approaches to reducing debt, they were just attacked as "nasty cuts" by opponents, media, and protesters.
I'm not sure there is an answer to Britain's problems that will be acceptable to the people, and only after PM Corbyn rips the economy apart will people wake up... and find another way to blame the Tories.
Of course, in reality, the first part wasn't achieved (and was probably never achievable, politically) and discontent has now risen to the point at which no government has any options that are both economically credible and politically feasible, other than to run around spinning the plates whilst hoping something turns up, or that their time expires and they can hand the problem on to the next lot.
Its less than three months until the tenth anniversary of Northern Rock's problems.
I thought afterwards "well at least this will stop the obsession with house prices and people spending money they haven't got".
A decade on and government debt is more than a trillion quid higher.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
I think you might be the new Plato.
If these funds cannot be identified, then I recommend that a decision must be taken by the DfT to reduce the Thameslink 2018 specification to a level that the existing system reliability can support. Such a decision should be taken in January, 2017. If it was decided to do this, there are significant implications for paragraphs 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 below: less rolling stock, drivers and depot facilities will be needed for Thameslink, and older rolling stock can be withdrawn quicker. But Thameslink will remain at 12 tph – half of what has been envisaged under the Thameslink programme.
We'll see by the EU's actions what its desires are. If it genuinely wants the UK to stay, then a small slice of red meat (mildly increased rebate, say) would work well. If it wants a good deal, a modest compromise would suffice.
If it tries to impose EU law on the UK after we leave the EU and have the ECJ overrule British courts then that is 100% unacceptable, and proof positive of an EU that wishes to harm the UK.
But given the dreadful longer term damage such things cause to both sides, it is not something we should accept even when the nutters on the Commission are proposing it if there is any alternative at all.
When it came to their pet projects - Overseas Aid, Middle-Eastern warmongering, HS2, Hinkley C, triple lock pensions, free schools for example - increasing debt to fund them was not an issue.
This could sink the whole deal.
Proof that Glasto fans will cheer any auld shite to try and justify to themselves the price of a ticket and wallowing in "mud" all weekend...
The socioeconomic effects of that is now bearing electoral fruit.
It is why Hard Brexit is nailed on.
Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, anyone?
Who said halfway through the referendum campaign that the new agreements were not binding and would be ignored?
Think that over for a bit.
I am not worried that even a Corbyn government would renege on its deal with the EU if we can reach one. But I wouldn't trust the EU and I will certainly assume any court linked to them cannot be trusted to be impartial. Yes, I have considered that sentence carefully.
And the knowledge that leaving without a deal would be a disaster for us as a country is also what led me to vote Remain.
Theresa May has hinted at a compromise over the vexed issue of EU citizens’ future rights in the UK, suggesting they could be guaranteed in the international court of justice in The Hague.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/theresa-may-reaffirms-migration-controls-as-key-aim-of-brexit
The Government collapses very quickly.
But not this.
Not this.
Ireland's last real brush with extremism was also in the early 1920s up to the assassination of O'Higgins and the aftermath. Ever since then it's been a functioning democracy.
And the most remarkable thing of all is that the policy innovation at the heart of it - QE - attracts almost no political attention or discussion whatsoever.
Firstly, the insatiable demand for consumer credit in the UK starves business of bank funding. Since leaving fund management, I've become CFO of a fast growing technology business. This is a company that will leave this year doing around $100m of revenue. Our bank is Barclays. Do you know how much overdraft they'll give us? £150,000. The banks would rather lend money to consumers with credit cards (interest rate 20+%) than to businesses.
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving. Now, in a perfect world, you let exports grow while leaving consumption flat (which is the old fashioned definition of austerity). In the real world, savings rates normally move all in a rush as consumers stop spending to shore up their personal balance sheets.
Different papers have different layouts, colours and styles.
Let me ask you clearly. If the EU say 'no deal without ECJ jurisdiction of EU citizens within the UK after Brexit' - do you accept that deal - yes or no?