It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others.
This isn't true at all. US state budgets don't need federal approval. Who do you think's getting a free ride? Greece???
What they will do is bring in methods of fiscal transfer, some of them disguised as programs that benefit the whole EU, like border security and green power generation. They'll also doubtless beef up regional development funds etc. But central control of budgets isn't necessary; If you spend too much, you run out of money, and the damage that inflicts is overwhelmingly inflicted on yourself, as the Greeks have found.
Of course some States, particularly on the coasts, may choose to have higher taxes and spending than the red states in the middle. That is in their discretion but that is also why I emphasised the lack of macro-economic policy. They operate within a set of fixed rules.
Mr. Z, my apologies, I'm a bit sleepy/distracted. Consider yourself chastised.
Mr. Eagles, it does amuse me that Praetorian Guard is used as political shorthand for diehard loyalists.
That was the concept, of a sort, wasn't it? That they themselves later became compromised in coups can't be divorced from how it happened (and that the Praetorian developed into an institution in their own right, which a leader's political 'bodyguards' of course aren't being much closer to the origin of the personal protection squad). And frankly, if a leader behaves badly enough, they end up forfeiting the right to rely on anyone.
Gibbon mentions somewhere the theory that the later empire should actually be seen as a republic, in which only the guard had a vote.
That's exaggerates it a bit but there's a germ of truth in there. (I must read DAFOTRE at some point but it is a somewhat intimidating undertaking).
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
May went to the country with the explicit message of "Back me and my vision of Brexit"
And the country returned their verdict.
The damage inflicted by Brexit on the Tory party will make the ERM debacle look like a mild sprain in comparison
Brexit didn't lose the election, just a few seats in London and the South. Inheritance tax and the dropping of scales from voters eyes re TM during the campaign was what did it.
What's interesting about 30 rebels is that they don't have the votes to call (and certainly not win) a leadership election. But they do have the votes to take the Prime Minister down at any time of their choosing, simply by abstaining on a Commons vote causing the PM to lose. There are surely many such votes where her authority would be shattered, not least the budget coming up which is likely to be tough anyway. This surely gives them far more power in the House than they do in the party?
That was why she wanted a larger majority. I am not sure that was the best thought through plan she has come up with...
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
Regarding the discussion earlier this morning on the nature of the Conservative party, a brilliant letter in today's Guardian from Neville Westerman should be required reading...
"It is a matter of historical record that the Conservatives voted against universal health in 1948, as they voted against universal dole and universal pensions in 1909, and universal education in 1870. I remember the vicious and dishonest hostility against the NHS by the Tory party and media in 1948, which was very similar to the present attitude of the US Republicans. But Jeremy Hunt declared to conference that Conservatives have always supported the NHS. What percentage of Tory members could be so ignorant as to believe that Jeremy had any intention to speak the truth? The success of the Tory party to gain power has largely been based on its eagerness to tell blatant lies. Tory policy for 150 years has been largely inhumane, devoid of compassion, and opposed to the welfare state, but defended by lying, their “not-so-secret” weapon. When Boris Johnson reveals himself as an untrustworthy liar within his own party, that makes him the members’ favourite MP to be our PM."
I'm sure it's required reading for those who want their prejudices confirmed, but to take the first and most obvious bit of nonsense in it, no, the Conservatives did not 'vote against universal health[care]' in 1948. Universal healthcare was of course the policy of all three main parties of the time; the disagreement was about the structure. What's more, experience has vindicated the Conservative position, that Attlee's monolithic nationalised hospital industry was a bad way to do it. Governments of all parties have been struggling with how to sort out the mess for decades.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
What you've described is a world away from a single budget. The EU budget is currently 1% of GDP. How much do you expect it to rise to in your future vision?
Its not that all the money will be spent centrally. It is that elected governments will lose control of their macro economic policy. They will have to make cuts when told to do so, to harmonise tax rates, to limit their investment in infrastructure etc. And they will have to do so at the behest of undemocratic institutions. This is happening already and is necessary for the EZ to work effectively.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
It probably did. The polls except Survation were diabolical. Martin Boon has not resigned yet, I see.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
It probably did. The polls except Survation were diabolical. Martin Boon has not resigned yet, I see.
The by-election result in Copeland would suggest otherwise.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
It probably did. The polls except Survation were diabolical. Martin Boon has not resigned yet, I see.
No - the local elections prove that the polls in April / early May were close to the mark, with Con wins in the metro-mayorals in the W Mids and Teesside.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
It probably did. The polls except Survation were diabolical. Martin Boon has not resigned yet, I see.
The by-election result in Copeland would suggest otherwise.
One by-election in a place which houses a nuclear power station and with Jeremy Corbyn's history of opposing nuclear is your best example.
The place is out of the ordinary that even with the biggest poll surge since 1945, Labour still could not win it.
I'm pretty sure that US states are not allowed to run deficits. They can have short term shortfalls, provided they are covered by reserves etc
The central government isn't stopping them. Most of them have their own balanced budget rules, but they're free to repeal them if they want.
Like Eurozone states what they can't do is print their own money, so if they borrow they need to find somebody willing to lend to them, which risks getting expensive if they run too big a deficit.
You don't need central control for something that's already controlled by arithmetic.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
Brexit as a concept isn't toxic. It's the contradictions, false premises and compromises that are bound up in it which are. The fault of the EU, as represented by Barnier, isn't that they are inflexible and unreasonable. Their fault is forcing the British people to face up to the contradictions of their position. If you are marginally sold on a project that you don't feel strongly about, on the promise that it will cost-free but you can get some of the nice things you have been dreaming of, only to find you're stuffed, you are not going to feel good about it nor the person who sold you that particular pup.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
Which is a different point. The Tories had embraced Brexit, whether on ideological grounds or as the pragmatic response to the referendum, and by June 2017 had invoked A50. If Brexit was toxic, it would have severely dented Tory poll ratings pre-April. It didn't.
It probably did. The polls except Survation were diabolical. Martin Boon has not resigned yet, I see.
No - the local elections prove that the polls in April / early May were close to the mark, with Con wins in the metro-mayorals in the W Mids and Teesside.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others.
This isn't true at all. US state budgets don't need federal approval. Who do you think's getting a free ride? Greece???
What they will do is bring in methods of fiscal transfer, some of them disguised as programs that benefit the whole EU, like border security and green power generation. They'll also doubtless beef up regional development funds etc. But central control of budgets isn't necessary; If you spend too much, you run out of money, and the damage that inflicts is overwhelmingly inflicted on yourself, as the Greeks have found.
Of course some States, particularly on the coasts, may choose to have higher taxes and spending than the red states in the middle. That is in their discretion but that is also why I emphasised the lack of macro-economic policy. They operate within a set of fixed rules.
That's not true at all. US states borrow on the money markets, issue bonds and have their own credit ratings (including some AAAs).
Toyota expected to build it's new Auris model in the UK on the assumption of a transition deal.
So much for the doom
Electric cars can be built in Britain even with Brexit. There won't be enough to supply demand and sooner or later duties on electric cars will drop everywhere as a necessity.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
What you've described is a world away from a single budget. The EU budget is currently 1% of GDP. How much do you expect it to rise to in your future vision?
Its not that all the money will be spent centrally. It is that elected governments will lose control of their macro economic policy. They will have to make cuts when told to do so, to harmonise tax rates, to limit their investment in infrastructure etc. And they will have to do so at the behest of undemocratic institutions. This is happening already and is necessary for the EZ to work effectively.
Who knows? It might work. Germany did well when the Bundesbank set most German economic policy. But it is not what I want for my country. If we choose to elect idiots like Corbyn or Brown then that is our right.
I think the main problem of Brexit in the UK is that it'd look like a slam-dunk to many more of the professional middle-classes in 15 years time, and many more Remainers on here, once the EU had federated further and started to encroach into macroeconomic territory, with the reality of Dave's deal exposed, but doesn't seem so today.
Even Leave were surprised they won this one this time round. They could see all that coming, of course, and felt they had to fight for the win, but I think they only expected to run it as close as possible.
May is lucky to be facing Shapps. Very weak this morning.
The Napoleon of modern politics? Weak, vacillating, brutal, arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and incompetent, but thrashing everyone around her because remarkably they are even more useless?
A little unfair, I feel.
Napoleon was a proven winner who reshaped Europe. And May isn’t.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Waterloo"
He still reshaped Europe and left a legacy which survives to this day.
He reshaped Europe up until the Congress of Vienna.
The Napoleonic Code.
The dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire which kickstarted the drive to German unification under Prussia.
The collapse of Hapsburg authority in the Italian states, which similarly led to Italian unification.
I could go on.
Critics argue Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost".[261] McLynn states that, "He can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars".[255]
He should be involved in Brexit - get Cummings back in as his henchman and break the wheel of the negotiations.
One of his last tweets yesterday...
@odysseanproject: "Beating Corbyn isn't the hard thing. It's getting at least a beta PM with an alpha team into no10. Do that, JC will fade as a problem"
Like Freddy Davis said after painting his blue budgie green "It wasn't the green paint that killed it but getting the blue paint off with a blowlamp"
The current Tory government is implementing Ed Miliband's policies. They were heavily criticised by the Torygraph, Sun and others at the time.
Miliband is a Tory, compared to Corbyn
Miliband's dad wanted to scuttle the home fleet at Scapa Flow. Michael Fallon told me. Though since half the Cabinet wanted to make peace with Hitler, maybe Miliband's dad was a Tory too.
Listening to question time last night there was no great support for Corbyn.
I am not sure that Theresa May has been particularly damaged by her speech and Shapps has gone all public but no one has supported him so far.
It is true to say that Theresa has her faults but there is no appetite out there for another election and she needs to get on with Brexit. 29th March 2019 will be a very different place politically from today
A bit of a pedantic point to make, but today's Guardian editorial states that Kazuo Ishiguro "never writes the same book twice". In fact, the author himself has said that his 2000 novel When We Were Orphans is pretty much a re-writing of his previous book from 1995 The Unconsoled.
The rest of the numbers (with comparisons which predate the election) make pretty brutal reading.....
They are brutal reading, compared to the pre-election numbers, but pretty much par for the course for most PM's. We don't rate our leaders very highly, most of the time.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
Did we actually join the Euro then? (Checks wallet.)
What am I going to do with all this here funny geebeepoundz I have?
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
If you're in the Eurozone, you have a choice: either you strengthen the central EU institutions to have a part say/vote in controlling the currency, or you are ruled by the Bundesbank by fiat due to macroeconomic reality.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
Brave Grant Shapps has stuck his head above the parapet only to have it blown off by the ardent May loyalists. Poor blighter. History is repeating itself though. Crispin Blunt suffered a similar fate when he tried to warn the Tories about IDS all those years ago.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
Did we actually join the Euro then? (Checks wallet.)
What am I going to do with all this here funny geebeepoundz I have?
Do you not still have yen? (edit, apologies I thought I was replying to edmundintokyo for some reason).
Of course we didn't join the Euro. But the EZ is going to become ever more integrated for the reasons I have been boring people with and will operate as a QMV in EU policy in its own interests. Its inevitable.
Brave Grant Shapps has stuck his head above the parapet only to have it blown off by the ardent May loyalists. Poor blighter. History is repeating itself though. Crispin Blunt suffered a similar fate when he tried to warn the Tories about IDS all those years ago.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
Isn't that just called 'being part of a capitalist world-system'? Nobody has control, everybody is just working out how to respond to externally imposed necessities. Being part of the EU is a little like being part a multicellular organism. The undividual cell loses some freedom of activity in exchange for being able to contend with the environment more effectively.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
Did we actually join the Euro then? (Checks wallet.)
What am I going to do with all this here funny geebeepoundz I have?
Do you not still have yen?
Of course we didn't join the Euro. But the EZ is going to become ever more integrated for the reasons I have been boring people with and will operate as a QMV in EU policy in its own interests. Its inevitable.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
If you're in the Eurozone, you have a choice: either you strengthen the central EU institutions to have a part say/vote in controlling the currency, or you are ruled by the Bundesbank by fiat due to macroeconomic reality.
That's true. Stronger EZ institutions may well give the Mediterranean states more of a say on EZ economic policy than the current situation where the German block is totally dominant. There is an old saying, however, of he who pays the piper picks the tune.
I think the latest YouGov poll says more about Labour's glass ceiling under Corbyn, than support for May.
Labour supporters will generally be happy to see May stumbling on for another year or two. Corbyn is realistic enough to know that he is probably unlikely to get a majority in the next GE, although Labour might just manage to be the largest Party under his leadership. He can, however, be pretty confident that standing aside, when the time is right, for his annointed successor, will result in a left leaning socialist government next time aorund.
I think he will do the right thing when the time is right.
Brave Grant Shapps has stuck his head above the parapet only to have it blown off by the ardent May loyalists. Poor blighter. History is repeating itself though. Crispin Blunt suffered a similar fate when he tried to warn the Tories about IDS all those years ago.
Shapps is not the sharpest tool in the box and to go full on public without securing the numbers is just stupid. I suspect his list is made up of ex cabinet ministers with a grudge against Theresa May.
Adam Boulton on Sky interviewing Nadine Doris
'If Grant Shapps has 30 people on his petition then Diane Abbott must be doing the adding up'
Brave Grant Shapps has stuck his head above the parapet only to have it blown off by the ardent May loyalists. Poor blighter. History is repeating itself though. Crispin Blunt suffered a similar fate when he tried to warn the Tories about IDS all those years ago.
I lost a filling at Heathrow 10 years ago waiting for a flight to Goa, and got it fixed by a Goa dentist who was clearly tooled up for dental tourism. My English dentist said they did a good job.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
I am very doubtful that a transition is achieveable. Partly because May (or whoever) will struggle to get it past the hard Brexiteers (no deal is better than a bad deal as you will remember) and partly because the procedure for getting it approved by the EU invoves the unanimous approval of the 27 plus the European Parliament. That's a very tall order given the time available.
Brave Grant Shapps has stuck his head above the parapet only to have it blown off by the ardent May loyalists. Poor blighter. History is repeating itself though. Crispin Blunt suffered a similar fate when he tried to warn the Tories about IDS all those years ago.
Shapps is not the sharpest tool in the box and to go full on public without securing the numbers is just stupid. I suspect his list is made up of ex cabinet ministers with a grudge against Theresa May.
Adam Boulton on Sky interviewing Nadine Doris
'If Grant Shapps has 30 people on his petition then Dianne Abbott must be doing the adding up'
That's a decent joke.
However, doesn't really matter if his list is ten or thirty. It 'aint 48.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
I am very doubtful that a transition is achieveable. Partly because May (or whoever) will struggle to get it past the hard Brexiteers (no deal is better than a bad deal as you will remember) and partly because the procedure for getting it approved by the EU invoves the unanimous approval of the 27 plus the European Parliament. That's a very tall order given the time available.
The important point is that a transition deal certainly won’t be agreed in the next few months. That’s when the economic consequences will start to show up in earnest.
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
.
I do agree that these are questions of degree but at the moment the government of the UK, for example, can choose to reduce its deficit slowly over a longer period as we have since 2010. There may be a price to pay for that (loss of AAA rating for example) but it is in our discretion. In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out. At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
If you're in the Eurozone, you have a choice: either you strengthen the central EU institutions to have a part say/vote in controlling the currency, or you are ruled by the Bundesbank by fiat due to macroeconomic reality.
That's true. Stronger EZ institutions may well give the Mediterranean states more of a say on EZ economic policy than the current situation where the German block is totally dominant. There is an old saying, however, of he who pays the piper picks the tune.
Don't you think it's odd that out of 28 separate countries only ENGLAND (not even Scotland or N. Ireland) realised that we were being chizzled by the Bundesbank?
I lost a filling at Heathrow 10 years ago waiting for a flight to Goa, and got it fixed by a Goa dentist who was clearly tooled up for dental tourism. My English dentist said they did a good job.
I had a similar experience in Thailand. Went to a hospital and the dental department was excellent. Have had no further trouble with that tooth, and it wasn’t worth claiming on my travel insurance.
Listening to question time last night there was no great support for Corbyn.
I am not sure that Theresa May has been particularly damaged by her speech and Shapps has gone all public but no one has supported him so far.
It is true to say that Theresa has her faults but there is no appetite out there for another election and she needs to get on with Brexit. 29th March 2019 will be a very different place politically from today
The big news in among all the recent froth both in the media and on here is how the polling simply fails t support the narrative being plugged. the level of disconnect between the people and the pundits grows ever wider.
In all this chaos it says something about Corbyn and labour they they are not out of sight in the polls or that Corbyn has higher approval rates than May as best PM (which he does not)
Listening to various broadcast media over the last few days it is clear that there is no desire to have a GE or for Corbyn to be PM in the country generally
We are where we are and no one has named anyone who would be better in post than May at present and the reason for that is there is is no one even with May's faults
Dr. Spyn, it's indicative of the strange political times we find ourselves in that a party polling 40% is in turmoil over whether or not to throw their leader overboard.
As I said when this was going on around Brown (whose party had a 19% standing in the polls at one point), rebels need to either win quickly or shut up and unite around the leader. Failed attacks just harm both the leader and the party, whilst helping political adversaries.
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
There you go. Fixed it for you
The headbangers will not be silenced. Fortunately the bulk of them are getting on a bit and nature will sweep them from the field of play so maybe in 20 years we can sort this mess out
I think the latest YouGov poll says more about Labour's glass ceiling under Corbyn, than support for May.
Labour supporters will generally be happy to see May stumbling on for another year or two. Corbyn is realistic enough to know that he is probably unlikely to get a majority in the next GE, although Labour might just manage to be the largest Party under his leadership. He can, however, be pretty confident that standing aside, when the time is right, for his annointed successor, will result in a left leaning socialist government next time aorund.
I think he will do the right thing when the time is right.
Corbyn only stood reluctantly (iirc, he was fifth choice for the Labour Left to stand someone in 2015 and didn't overly want to) but he seems to be enjoying it now too much to just stand down. 40% could be a majority if Brexit goes tits up and Tories peel off to UKIP and Lib Dems. Plus the fact that Corbyn's ceiling seems to keep getting raised beyond what most imagined.
Not sure about this poll. There are half a dozen different narratives within its margin of error.
In all this chaos it says something about Corbyn and labour they they are not out of sight in the polls or that Corbyn has higher approval rates than May as best PM (which he does not)
Listening to various broadcast media over the last few days it is clear that there is no desire to have a GE or for Corbyn to be PM in the country generally
We are where we are and no one has named anyone who would be better in post than May at present and the reason for that is there is is no one even with May's faults
I think that you are right about no desire for a GE. We’ve had enough of elections and it’s surely not beyond the wit of our MP’s to select a PM who can pick a team to deal with Brexit, including, I sincerely hope, coming back to the country and saying ‘this is going to be far too damaging’. But if they do come back and say ‘we can do this’ that’ll have to be lived with.
Listening to Nadine Doris she name checked Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan supporting Theresa May as has Margo James. Looks like the sisterhood are closing ranks around May and Shapps seems exposed as one of several male ex ministers who are bad losers
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
There you go. Fixed it for you
The headbangers will not be silenced. Fortunately the bulk of them are getting on a bit and nature will sweep them from the field of play so maybe in 20 years we can sort this mess out
The level of ignorance you display is breathtaking. The logic of your argument about 'headbangers' dying off is the most amusing example of it.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
I am very doubtful that a transition is achieveable. Partly because May (or whoever) will struggle to get it past the hard Brexiteers (no deal is better than a bad deal as you will remember) and partly because the procedure for getting it approved by the EU invoves the unanimous approval of the 27 plus the European Parliament. That's a very tall order given the time available.
Actually it requires a qualified majority of member states and a straight yes or no without modification from the EU Parliament. The advantages of agreeing stuff through Article 50 is that it is simpler and quicker and we can get it sorted while still members. But Article 50 is only one stage of the negotiations. If we exit with no withdrawal agreement, it won't be a case of that's that. We will still need to come to agreement with the EU and they won't drop any of their demands.
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
There you go. Fixed it for you
The headbangers will not be silenced. Fortunately the bulk of them are getting on a bit and nature will sweep them from the field of play so maybe in 20 years we can sort this mess out
The level of ignorance you display is breathtaking. The logic of your argument about 'headbangers' dying off is the most amusing example of it.
Fair enough. I will still be here in 20 years. A lot of them will not be.
The current state of Brexit is an utter, utter shambles.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
I am very doubtful that a transition is achieveable. Partly because May (or whoever) will struggle to get it past the hard Brexiteers (no deal is better than a bad deal as you will remember) and partly because the procedure for getting it approved by the EU invoves the unanimous approval of the 27 plus the European Parliament. That's a very tall order given the time available.
The important point is that a transition deal certainly won’t be agreed in the next few months. That’s when the economic consequences will start to show up in earnest.
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
I think there is a serious risk of a collapse in sterling when the markets realise that the cliff edge is looming. This could happen any time between now and the Spring of next year. If May goes and the £ collapses whilst the country is effectively leaderless we would certainly be in crisis territory.
Listening to Nadine Doris she name checked Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan supporting Theresa May as has Margo James. Looks like the sisterhood are closing ranks around May and Shapps seems exposed as one of several male ex ministers who are bad losers
Not too sure, TBH, how much credence to give to Nadine Dorries.
Mr. Owls, that *might* be quite significant for British politics.
Lib Dems need cosy consensus to prosper, as fear of the other dissuades potential voters from abandoning their preferred hue of blue and red.
But if someone sees them both as unacceptable, then a wildly different option has a better chance of succeeding than a nicey-nice middle of the road party.
That could help Mrs May sell the Article 50 compromises, but she will have to be quick.
Possibly. There is a general assumption in the business world that there will be a transition because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
There won't be a "transition" (Brexit delay) if the government doesn't sign up to the EU Article 50 demands within the next few weeks. Perhaps that could be Mrs May's last (and as PM only) service to the country.
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
I can say that manufacturing is definitely assuming that there will be a long transition agreement. Way beyond 2 years as they can't see how the details can be resolved faster. The risk that the politicians face is that if they make fast changes then chaos will occur as no-one is ready.
Listening to Nadine Doris she name checked Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan supporting Theresa May as has Margo James. Looks like the sisterhood are closing ranks around May and Shapps seems exposed as one of several male ex ministers who are bad losers
Not too sure, TBH, how much credence to give to Nadine Dorries.
"To trigger a vote of confidence, at least 15 per cent of Tory MPs (48 at present) must write to the 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady (whom I interviewed last year) requesting one. Only Brady knows for certain how many there are. The epistolary assassins are guaranteed anonymity – unless they choose to make their intentions public."
So any Tory MP could pledge support for Theresa whilst still putting in a letter.
The current state of Brexit is an utter, utter shambles.
Mrs May asked for a mandate to carry out the negotiations. Unfortunately the electorate decided that they wanted a shambles instead.
Are you agreeing with Mike that she did not get a mandate?
Of course. That is exactly why the mess is so bad. There is now no-one who can make the necessary trade-offs, and ensure that they stick. The EU27 can't even be sure who they are negotiating with.
Productivity in UK 25% behind Germany 23% behind France 22% behind US
After 7 years of Tory rule Surely some mistake
That can't be right. I've read on here that France is an economic basket case whose impoverished citoyens are just weeks away from storming the Bastille.
Comments
It emerged yesterday that disgruntled former ministers tried to whip up support for a new coup on Wednesday afternoon.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4622220/rebel-mps-admit-they-dont-have-the-numbers-to-oust-theresa-may/amp/
YouGov in 2015 overstated Labour.
YouGov in 2017 overstated the Tories.
Of course some States, particularly on the coasts, may choose to have higher taxes and spending than the red states in the middle. That is in their discretion but that is also why I emphasised the lack of macro-economic policy. They operate within a set of fixed rules.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/916243928734715905
The place is out of the ordinary that even with the biggest poll surge since 1945, Labour still could not win it.
Like Eurozone states what they can't do is print their own money, so if they borrow they need to find somebody willing to lend to them, which risks getting expensive if they run too big a deficit.
You don't need central control for something that's already controlled by arithmetic.
So much for the doom
But we did not bring out our ace campaign card:
Vote for us, we won't win !
That did it.
Net Yes: +1 (+4)
Conservative voters: +57
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/711zi84n7n/TimesResults_171005_Trackers_VI_W.pdf
The rest of the numbers (with comparisons which predate the election) make pretty brutal reading.....
In the EZ it is different. A MS which runs what is deemed an excessive deficit is not just spending its own money. Its trading off the credit rating of the other more responsible MSs (ie Germany) and thus avoiding the consequences for its actions. The price the EZ as a whole pays is a weaker Euro and marginally higher interest rates. Its not fair and the responsible States want it to stop. They have rules which should prevent this (eg max 3% deficit) but enforcement has proved difficult because governments that try too hard to comply have a tendency to be thrown out.
At the moment, possibly because of Brexit, there is a stand off about this. But I think it is inevitable that the Euro institutions will push for greater central control when the opportunity arises. It is a part of the price of EZ membership. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Greece, who have to have prior approval of their budget is the example here but it will soon apply to all EZ States. So if Italy, for example choose to elect a left wing government who thinks the lack of growth there needs much more fiscal stimulus we will find that they can't do so without threats of exclusion from the Euro.
I would repeat this is not some evil centrist conspiracy. It is the price of having a single currency, central bank and interest rate.
Lab -1
Even Leave were surprised they won this one this time round. They could see all that coming, of course, and felt they had to fight for the win, but I think they only expected to run it as close as possible.
They overperformed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Criticism
I am not sure that Theresa May has been particularly damaged by her speech and Shapps has gone all public but no one has supported him so far.
It is true to say that Theresa has her faults but there is no appetite out there for another election and she needs to get on with Brexit. 29th March 2019 will be a very different place politically from today
A bit of a pedantic point to make, but today's Guardian editorial states that Kazuo Ishiguro "never writes the same book twice". In fact, the author himself has said that his 2000 novel When We Were Orphans is pretty much a re-writing of his previous book from 1995 The Unconsoled.
Can't do it.
What am I going to do with all this here funny geebeepoundz I have?
Edit. The other point is that Toyota doesn't have a huge choice of factories. I think they have just two in the EU and the other factory in France is presumably busy with other models.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/02/uk.conservatives3
Of course we didn't join the Euro. But the EZ is going to become ever more integrated for the reasons I have been boring people with and will operate as a QMV in EU policy in its own interests. Its inevitable.
Shurely shome mistake!
Labour supporters will generally be happy to see May stumbling on for another year or two. Corbyn is realistic enough to know that he is probably unlikely to get a majority in the next GE, although Labour might just manage to be the largest Party under his leadership. He can, however, be pretty confident that standing aside, when the time is right, for his annointed successor, will result in a left leaning socialist government next time aorund.
I think he will do the right thing when the time is right.
Adam Boulton on Sky interviewing Nadine Doris
'If Grant Shapps has 30 people on his petition then Diane Abbott must be doing the adding up'
He boldly turned his tail and fled.
I lost a filling at Heathrow 10 years ago waiting for a flight to Goa, and got it fixed by a Goa dentist who was clearly tooled up for dental tourism. My English dentist said they did a good job.
This guy http://www.drhubertgomes.com/pricelist.htm
seems to want £200-500 for an implant.
However, doesn't really matter if his list is ten or thirty. It 'aint 48.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/its-time-to-call-it-a-day-on-this-tory-government/
The crisis is beginning, and it ends either in Remain or in disaster.
After 7 years of Tory rule Surely some mistake
Listening to various broadcast media over the last few days it is clear that there is no desire to have a GE or for Corbyn to be PM in the country generally
We are where we are and no one has named anyone who would be better in post than May at present and the reason for that is there is is no one even with May's faults
As I said when this was going on around Brown (whose party had a 19% standing in the polls at one point), rebels need to either win quickly or shut up and unite around the leader. Failed attacks just harm both the leader and the party, whilst helping political adversaries.
The headbangers will not be silenced. Fortunately the bulk of them are getting on a bit and nature will sweep them from the field of play so maybe in 20 years we can sort this mess out
Not sure about this poll. There are half a dozen different narratives within its margin of error.
At the moment no-one seems to be doing either!
The current state of Brexit is an utter, utter shambles.
TM is not a wax work DP
Lib Dems need cosy consensus to prosper, as fear of the other dissuades potential voters from abandoning their preferred hue of blue and red.
But if someone sees them both as unacceptable, then a wildly different option has a better chance of succeeding than a nicey-nice middle of the road party.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy/uk-productivity-falls-at-joint-fastest-rate-since-2013-ons-idUKKBN1CB0W3
The impact of business sitting on its hands is becoming evident. Companies still hoarding labour at moment but not sure how long this will last.
TM in my view is now gone. There is no way back.
So any Tory MP could pledge support for Theresa whilst still putting in a letter.
Chicago homicide count so far this year — 529:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-chicago-murders/timeline?mon=10