"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
It might be more accurate to say that few had big sales in foreign languages.
It should be a blogpost. Lis makes several points, which get mixed up in a long twitter thread. On his main point that a minimal "No deal" deal won't happen, the EU makes two points that I have read.
Firstly, bespoke arrangements, even minimal ones, take years to negotiate. So no-one wants to ground planes. But enabling them to fly has implications that need to be worked through. You need appropriate insurance, regulatory conformance, agreement on data sharing etc. And that's just for one necessary service of keeping planes flying.
Secondly, the EU reckon they are offering the UK a pathway. Pay us the €60 billion and agree citizen rights and you get the full package. They are not minded to go out of their way just because the UK baulks at that.
The new information in Lis' thread is that the EU would probably allow an Article 50 extension if it's needed to enable a deal on EU terms.
We get an indication of a trade deal with the Article 50 arrangement. There is no trade deal on offer. So it's €60 billion to clear past obligations and claims and we get a two year full fat extension and an indication of a future relationship with ongoing talks.
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
That's a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining to those of us not of the persuasion why otherwise normal people choose to embrace the faith. It could just as easily have been written in 1817 as 2017. Somewhere between activist and member It's a cult no less bewildering than the Masons. It explains why the likes of John Redwood IDS and J R-M are revered. God help us if we have to suffer a reinvention for the sake of THEIR 'political objectives'
A good observation. The Q arising from Charles's post is since when was it the business of Conservatives to be risking the economy for other objectives?
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
What do you think Priti was discussing? I wondered if it’s a bit like when the Democratic or Tepublican nominee visits allied countries to build relationships that will be needed if they become President.
Apparently suggesting that some of our foreign aid go to the Israeli army...
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
As mentioned yesterday, the more I think about it the more I believe that the only possible way forward for us and the EU is to extend A50 for two more years (Lis' pt. 32).
If there was a betting opportunity I would lump on that option.
But what about the Euroloons JRM, JR, WC, etc? Good question - but she either faces them down or the country takes one almighty shellacking.
bad news for SeanT and his bet....
Facing down the Euroloons has long been untackled business for the Tories (Cameron's cunning plan to do so having spectacularly misfired). Since whatever comes out of Brexit will never be good enough for them, this unfinished business will remain in the in-tray of the next Tory leader, for sure.
I imagine Mr Bottas cares quite a lot about it! The team have finished 1-2 for the last three seasons, I’m sure they won’t mind doing so again if the opportunity arises.
Mr. B, no... weather forecast, sadly, is dry, but things can bubble up quickly.
Checked yesterday but there was only the winner market. If it were wet, that'd open up interesting Verstappen/Hulkenberg possibilities.
Betfair exchange only has the winner market up so far. Hamilton 2.3 Verstappen 4.9 Vettel 5.3 Ricciardo 12 Bottas 13.5 Raikkonen 26 All others 100.
Maybe Bottas is the value there, Lewis will let him by if possible, as the Finn is chasing Vettel for 2nd in the drivers’ championship.
Trouble is, Mr.D, that the cold tracks are the ones where Bottas has struggled this season. If he's in second, then the gesture is far from impossible, particularly in the interest of maintaining their good relationship, but otherwise...
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
As mentioned yesterday, the more I think about it the more I believe that the only possible way forward for us and the EU is to extend A50 for two more years (Lis' pt. 32).
If there was a betting opportunity I would lump on that option.
But what about the Euroloons JRM, JR, WC, etc? Good question - but she either faces them down or the country takes one almighty shellacking.
There are markets on whether we will actually leave the EU on the 2019 A50 end date - but currently not doing so is already the clear favourite.
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
To be clear, that thread says as much to me about the EU's failings as Britain's. Its own bureaucracy and policy positions are not immutable laws of physics. If it chooses to stick to them, that is a conscious choice, whatever rationale it might put forward for doing so.
It does - but it's actually quite hard for the EU to deviate from their legal processes, and our delays in getting the negotiation underway, and subsequent mixed (or just completely confused) messages haven't helped matters. I am sure that there are those who would accommodate us - but there are also those who will happily insist on the letter of their law, come what may. Assuming that they'll just abrogate any legal procedures to help us out at the eleventh hour is a huge gamble. Massive bureaucracies no not react nimbly; and in the end, we are not negotiating with an individual.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
I disagree. An evil, oppressive regime taking advantage of a mistake is not a resigning matter. If they wanted to give her a longer sentence they would have found a reason. That's just the way it rolls.
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
A mistake that imperils a British citizen is very obviously a resigning issue. It would then be up to the Prime Minister to decide whether to accept the resignation. Iran is an evil regime is not an excuse for Boris being unfit to do his job.
That is her sole purpose. If that looks like failing she will be gone by lunchtime
I think that is fair comment.
However, she needs to be certain that the sleaze allegations are out in the open and at that time undertake a cabinet reshuffle.
New blood is desparately needed though I was amazed that she chose Williamson as Defence Sec when she should have appointed a much more suitable candidate and Esther McVey to deputy whip was a silly appointment and a waste of Esther's talents.
Some think that I am a devoted TM follower but that is far from my reasoning. She has made some terrible errors and has no inter personal skills and has no prospect of leading the party into the next GE.
My support for TM is entirely pragmatic as no one in this present moment could do any better in view of the unrelenting problems admittedly some of her own making. However as someone on Sky paper review has just said that if she was TM she would just walk away and tell everyone else to get on with it and that would lead to utter chaos.
TM was a remainer and will do a deal with the EU. It pays the remainers to paint the conservative party as hard Brexiteers but in truth the conservative party are above all else practical and will not take us off the edge. That is simply unacceptable.
So to sum up, TM has no long term future, I am not blind to her faults, she is there to deliver Brexit and provide time for new rising stars to come forward to take over the party leadership and probably become PM.
Mr. B, no... weather forecast, sadly, is dry, but things can bubble up quickly.
Checked yesterday but there was only the winner market. If it were wet, that'd open up interesting Verstappen/Hulkenberg possibilities.
Betfair exchange only has the winner market up so far. Hamilton 2.3 Verstappen 4.9 Vettel 5.3 Ricciardo 12 Bottas 13.5 Raikkonen 26 All others 100.
Maybe Bottas is the value there, Lewis will let him by if possible, as the Finn is chasing Vettel for 2nd in the drivers’ championship.
Trouble is, Mr.D, that the cold tracks are the ones where Bottas has struggled this season. If he's in second, then the gesture is far from impossible, particularly in the interest of maintaining their good relationship, but otherwise...
Okay, I’ve gone for a fiver on Bottas at 13.5. If nothing else it will be hedgeable if he qualifies well.
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
That's a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining to those of us not of the persuasion why otherwise normal people choose to embrace the faith. It could just as easily have been written in 1817 as 2017. Somewhere between activist and member It's a cult no less bewildering than the Masons. It explains why the likes of John Redwood IDS and J R-M are revered. God help us if we have to suffer a reinvention for the sake of THEIR 'political objectives'
A good observation. The Q arising from Charles's post is since when was it the business of Conservatives to be risking the economy for other objectives?
The economy which has had a decade of stagnant wages and productivity and over a trillion quid of government borrowing, had 15 years of falling home ownership and hasn't had a month of trade surplus since January 1998 ?
Its not changing things which is the risk for the economic wellbeing of the country.
Mr. B, no... weather forecast, sadly, is dry, but things can bubble up quickly.
Checked yesterday but there was only the winner market. If it were wet, that'd open up interesting Verstappen/Hulkenberg possibilities.
Betfair exchange only has the winner market up so far. Hamilton 2.3 Verstappen 4.9 Vettel 5.3 Ricciardo 12 Bottas 13.5 Raikkonen 26 All others 100.
Maybe Bottas is the value there, Lewis will let him by if possible, as the Finn is chasing Vettel for 2nd in the drivers’ championship.
Trouble is, Mr.D, that the cold tracks are the ones where Bottas has struggled this season. If he's in second, then the gesture is far from impossible, particularly in the interest of maintaining their good relationship, but otherwise...
Okay, I’ve gone for a fiver on Bottas at 13.5. If nothing else it will be hedgeable if he qualifies well.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
The ice has already melted but they are carried along by momentum (which, if you think about it, is really just mobile inertia).
I’m definitely expecting a post-Budget reshuffle now, once the fallout from the sex abuse scandal is fully known. Boris is a living, buffooning example of the Peter Principle in practice and did Priti really not understand that meeting foreign ministers while on holiday and without telling anyone was a no-no?
The idea of Priti being ticked off by May, and being, apparently, contrite, reminds me of Oscar Wilde ...... you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh!
To paraphrase Star Wars: These aren't the Tories we're looking for.
That is her sole purpose. If that looks like failing she will be gone by lunchtime
I think that is fair comment.
However, she needs to be certain that the sleaze allegations are out in the open and at that time undertake a cabinet reshuffle.
New blood is desparately needed though I was amazed that she chose Williamson as Defence Sec when she should have appointed a much more suitable candidate and Esther McVey to deputy whip was a silly appointment and a waste of Esther's talents.
Some think that I am a devoted TM follower but that is far from my reasoning. She has made some terrible errors and has no inter personal skills and has no prospect of leading the party into the next GE.
My support for TM is entirely pragmatic as no one in this present moment could do any better in view of the unrelenting problems admittedly some of her own making. However as someone on Sky paper review has just said that if she was TM she would just walk away and tell everyone else to get on with it and that would lead to utter chaos.
TM was a remainer and will do a deal with the EU. It pays the remainers to paint the conservative party as hard Brexiteers but in truth the conservative party are above all else practical and will not take us off the edge. That is simply unacceptable.
So to sum up, TM has no long term future, I am not blind to her faults, she is there to deliver Brexit and provide time for new rising stars to come forward to take over the party leadership and probably become PM.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
I disagree. An evil, oppressive regime taking advantage of a mistake is not a resigning matter. If they wanted to give her a longer sentence they would have found a reason. That's just the way it rolls.
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
It's not the action of the regime that's the resigning matter - it is that we have a Foreign Secretary too lazy to get advice on the nature of regimes he's spouting off about, and the likely implications of such spouting. The man is quite simply utterly unprofessional. Or as Pepys put it, a bragging Bufflehead.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
Almost. If I were PM I’d suggest publicly that the money issue be referred to an international court of arbitration then we get on with the trade talks. If the EU won’t agree, then we walk away now and start preparing to leave the EU at the end of March 2019.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
I'm sure they would say it's the inexorable legal outcome of our unwillingness to meet our obligations. Which is... up to a point... a defensible argument, albeit a highly unfriendly one.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
Hey, it's 'our' government too. Prayers all round I think.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
If we were a net beneficiary there is no way the EU would demand that they continue to pay the rest of the money under the budget period. It's nothing to do with the rule of law.
We're not even getting the benefits that they are obligated to pay us in exchange for the money anyway.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
TM was a remainer and will do a deal with the EU. It pays the remainers to paint the conservative party as hard Brexiteers but in truth the conservative party are above all else practical and will not take us off the edge. That is simply unacceptable.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
Still the fantasy persists that even if Brexit is "bad", it won't be "that bad"
There is no evidence that TMay will get any sort of deal, and without a deal planes will be grounded.
At what point will reality finally dawn in Brexitland?
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
What do you think Priti was discussing? I wondered if it’s a bit like when the Democratic or Tepublican nominee visits allied countries to build relationships that will be needed if they become President.
Apparently suggesting that some of our foreign aid go to the Israeli army...
I thought that was satirical until I checked twitter..
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
We can fly within the UK.
If we leave OpenSkies then all our Certificates of Airworthiness due from 1st April onwards cannot be validated and without those an aircraft has no insurance and cannot fly. All our slots in Europe become available to other airlines and there is intense competition for slots. Once they are purchased by others then they are gone.
Starting in April 2018, flights and services booking facilities, slots and venues that are in the EU or that require transit across EU airspace 12 month in advance will not be able to guarantee that in April 2019 they will be able to honour their bookings. That is 4 months away and I look forward to seeing how the Leavers explain that one away. The simplest solution is to book everything through airlines based in the EU.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
We will pay the €60 billion and the planes won't be grounded. It's what it is.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
What do you think Priti was discussing? I wondered if it’s a bit like when the Democratic or Tepublican nominee visits allied countries to build relationships that will be needed if they become President.
Apparently suggesting that some of our foreign aid go to the Israeli army...
I thought that was satirical until I checked twitter..
TM was a remainer and will do a deal with the EU. It pays the remainers to paint the conservative party as hard Brexiteers but in truth the conservative party are above all else practical and will not take us off the edge. That is simply unacceptable.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
Still the fantasy persists that even if Brexit is "bad", it won't be "that bad"
There is no evidence that TMay will get any sort of deal, and without a deal planes will be grounded.
At what point will reality finally dawn in Brexitland?
Extreme Remainer's are to be classed with hard Brexiteers.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
We can fly within the UK.
If we leave OpenSkies then all our Certificates of Airworthiness due from 1st April onwards cannot be validated and without those an aircraft has no insurance and cannot fly. All our slots in Europe become available to other airlines and there is intense competition for slots. Once they are purchased by others then they are gone.
Starting in April 2018, flights and services booking facilities, slots and venues that are in the EU or that require transit across EU airspace 12 month in advance will not be able to guarantee that in April 2019 they will be able to honour their bookings. That is 4 months away and I look forward to seeing how the Leavers explain that one away. The simplest solution is to book everything through airlines based in the EU.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
We will pay the €60 billion and the planes won't be grounded. It's what it is.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Do you really think European air space will close down on 30th March 2019 with all UK planes prevented from flying in European air space and we stop all over flying of the UK
We can fly within the UK.
If we leave OpenSkies then all our Certificates of Airworthiness due from 1st April onwards cannot be validated and without those an aircraft has no insurance and cannot fly. All our slots in Europe become available to other airlines and there is intense competition for slots. Once they are purchased by others then they are gone.
Starting in April 2018, flights and services booking facilities, slots and venues that are in the EU or that require transit across EU airspace 12 month in advance will not be able to guarantee that in April 2019 they will be able to honour their bookings. That is 4 months away and I look forward to seeing how the Leavers explain that one away. The simplest solution is to book everything through airlines based in the EU.
But the slots are the biggest headache.
And the World stand backs and looks at the EU with astonishment and disbelief.
Seems some in the US are already calling the EU a protectionist racket
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
I do wonder what they do with all the money they squirrel away. Do they polish it until gleams? Do they sit there admiring it by candlelight crooning "My preciousssss....."
So the EU is extorting money from the UK under menaces and everyone on here seems to think that's fine and dandy because we deserve to be punished for daring to leave the utopia of the EU.
Pathetic.
The UK still has a lot of weight, I don't think the government should be taking this lying down at all. Trump was talking about leaving NATO, maybe if we started making noises in that direction and setting up an alternative alliance with the US then that I imagine the "rule of law" won't be so important when they've got Russia looming to their East.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
Yes Granny putting £500 into her IS A is exactly the same as her getting her private Jet registered in IOM so she get get a £3 million VAT refund.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
Almost. If I were PM I’d suggest publicly that the money issue be referred to an international court of arbitration then we get on with the trade talks. If the EU won’t agree, then we walk away now and start preparing to leave the EU at the end of March 2019.
We are where we are because we voted to leave the European Union on the back of a campaign in which voters were told there were no downsides to exit. The problem is entirely political and it is about the Conservative party being unable to accept that there are, of course, considerable costs associated with Brexit. We are faced with one now: we can pay the money the EU wants in order to secure a friendly departure and kick-start trade talks, or we can walk away and inflict significant, long-term harm on ourselves. Neither was an option the voters were presented with in June 2016. But they are the only two on the table and were only ever going to be the two available. It turns out that they are not desperate for a deal and we do not hold all the cards. Whoever would have thought it?
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Apple and BBC 'talent' are now part of the right ?
Perhaps we could have a Venn diagram of highly paid BBC 'talent', those who are involoved in sleazy tax avoidance and those who demand higher government spending.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
I do wonder what they do with all the money they squirrel away. Do they polish it until gleams? Do they sit there admiring it by candlelight crooning "My preciousssss....."
I am with you on that one.
If I had wealth I would do a Bill Gates and use it for the good of others
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Whats the rule about VAT on a private jet used for leisure?
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
Yes Granny putting £500 into her IS A is exactly the same as her getting her private Jet registered in IOM so she get get a £3 million VAT refund.
I suppose most of us have an idea of what is legitimate tax avoidance, and what is taking the piss, but where does one draw the line?
A good observation. The Q arising from Charles's post is since when was it the business of Conservatives to be risking the economy for other objectives?
1/2 It has always been so if the national interest demands it. I can never stress strongly enough that Conservatism is at heart a social and not an economic movement, with its prime objective being the minimisation of the risk of severe social disruption.
Now, a number of question arise out of that which I'll come to in a moment but the first thing has to be to note that it is also run by humans and humans make mistakes: nearly all decisions are decided on the basis of a balance of risks and opportunities and not everyone gets everything right. Cock-up is more frequent than conspiracy.
The second point to note is that usually growing the economy - as long as it is shared fairly (itself a contentious concept) - is the surest way of ensuring social calm: a prosperous nation is usually a contented nation, or at least, one which will indulge its passion for change in moral improvement and the like rather than riot. This, however, is not a universal rule.
Thirdly, sometimes it's also necessary in order to lessen the risk of severe social disruption to permit and even instigate moderate disruption. I've just finished reading a history of the General Strike, which bears marked similarities to the Miners' Strike of 1984-5. In both cases, the government took a bitter fight to the strikers rather than seek compromise. In both cases, it did so because to do otherwise would have unbalanced the distribution of power in the country to such an extent that it could have proven ungovernable, or only governable at the cost of great violence.
So to Brexit. Whether Cameron was right to call his referendum is now beside the point; it has happened (though let's note in passing that the Lib Dems were quite happy to offer an In/Out referendum in 2005 with In linked not to a loosening of ties but to further integration). The question is therefore whether the government is right to implement the decision of the referendum and if so, how. (cont ...)
2/2 (cont.) To my mind, a hard Brexit is the only responsible course, despite the damage it will do. The simple reason is that to do otherwise will so undermine trust in democracy as to put the links that bind society together at risk. If the country takes a decision - even a crap one - then it is entitled to see it implemented. It can then judge for itself how crap the decision was and, if it wants, take steps to reverse it. But for others to reverse it on its behalf without asking it would be to render their vote worthless and their voice worthless: what then would be their response? Likewise, to implement the measure in name but without addressing in a meaningful sense any of the grievances that drove the decision would again produce that same sense of powerlessness.
To go down that road would risk the defection of a substantial portion of the electorate to movements more extreme than have governed Britain in centuries. Even now, Labour is led by members of its far left (whatever the policy manifesto might say), and the Tories are under severe pressure from its internal right and from the external right which is propping up its support in the polls (this should not be viewed as a defect, by the way; it is how democracy is supposed to work). Nonetheless, practical politicians have a duty to demonstrate the worth of practical politics.
The stakes are enormous and leadership of the highest quality is demanded. It would be easy to get it wrong either way and in so doing, generate a demand for political revolution, which could, inter alia, bring along all sorts of unsavoury pet enthusiams along with the revolution. When the mainstream is discredited, critical thinking goes with it and much is let by, by default.
To win the case for good government, the Tories have to demonstrate good government - and that means staying aligned with the people, even when their act against their interests. Lead, yes; cajole, yes; educate, definitely. But impose at your peril.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
Almost. If I were PM I’d suggest publicly that the money issue be referred to an international court of arbitration then we get on with the trade talks. If the EU won’t agree, then we walk away now and start preparing to leave the EU at the end of March 2019.
We are where we are because we voted to leave the European Union on the back of a campaign in which voters were told there were no downsides to exit. The problem is entirely political and it is about the Conservative party being unable to accept that there are, of course, considerable costs associated with Brexit. We are faced with one now: we can pay the money the EU wants in order to secure a friendly departure and kick-start trade talks, or we can walk away and inflict significant, long-term harm on ourselves. Neither was an option the voters were presented with in June 2016. But they are the only two on the table and were only ever going to be the two available. It turns out that they are not desperate for a deal and we do not hold all the cards. Whoever would have thought it?
Does it not bother you at all how unreasonable and hostile the EU are acting in not even coming to the table and negotiating anything unless we pay them a load of money?
What would a reasonable organisation that appreciates the massive payments the UK has made over the last 40 years do in this situation? Not this. They want to do as much damage to the UK as possible and thank fuck people like that are eventually not going to hold this power over us.
So the EU is extorting money from the UK under menaces and everyone on here seems to think that's fine and dandy because we deserve to be punished for daring to leave the utopia of the EU.
Pathetic.
The UK still has a lot of weight, I don't think the government should be taking this lying down at all. Trump was talking about leaving NATO, maybe if we started making noises in that direction and setting up an alternative alliance with the US then that I imagine the "rule of law" won't be so important when they've got Russia looming to their East.
We have choices. We could do as you suggest or we can do the sensible thing that is in our interest. GIven we have the choice and no-one says we don't, talk of extorting money under menaces is ridiculous.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
Yes Granny putting £500 into her IS A is exactly the same as her getting her private Jet registered in IOM so she get get a £3 million VAT refund.
I suppose most of us have an idea of what is legitimate tax avoidance, and what is taking the piss, but where does one draw the line?
It is either legal or illegal - If legal £500 or £3 million is irrelevant
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
Almost. If I were PM I’d suggest publicly that the money issue be referred to an international court of arbitration then we get on with the trade talks. If the EU won’t agree, then we walk away now and start preparing to leave the EU at the end of March 2019.
We are where we are because we voted to leave the European Union on the back of a campaign in which voters were told there were no downsides to exit. The problem is entirely political and it is about the Conservative party being unable to accept that there are, of course, considerable costs associated with Brexit. We are faced with one now: we can pay the money the EU wants in order to secure a friendly departure and kick-start trade talks, or we can walk away and inflict significant, long-term harm on ourselves. Neither was an option the voters were presented with in June 2016. But they are the only two on the table and were only ever going to be the two available. It turns out that they are not desperate for a deal and we do not hold all the cards. Whoever would have thought it?
Does it not bother you at all how unreasonable and hostile the EU are acting in not even coming to the table and negotiating anything unless we pay them a load of money?
What would a reasonable organisation that appreciates the massive payments the UK has made over the last 40 years do in this situation? Not this. They want to do as much damage to the UK as possible and thank fuck people like that are eventually not going to hold this power over us.
Nothing is agreed, till everything is agreed. If we offer money, and are offered nothing in return, then we don't pay up.
So the EU is extorting money from the UK under menaces and everyone on here seems to think that's fine and dandy because we deserve to be punished for daring to leave the utopia of the EU.
Pathetic.
The UK still has a lot of weight, I don't think the government should be taking this lying down at all. Trump was talking about leaving NATO, maybe if we started making noises in that direction and setting up an alternative alliance with the US then that I imagine the "rule of law" won't be so important when they've got Russia looming to their East.
We have choices. We could do as you suggest or we can do the sensible thing that is in our interest. GIven we have the choice and no-one says we don't, talk of extorting money under menaces is ridiculous.
Drivel. They won't even agree to basic stuff that they have with loads of countries outside the EU who didn't have to pay them £50bn. That is THEIR choice to impose this on us and ONLY us. You seem to be able to forgive/ignore the behaviour of the EU in this situation whilst piling all the blame on the UK for following the will of the majority of the people in the country.
It's like saying when confronted with a mugger you have a choice to hand over your wallet and be happy about it or get stabbed in the chest. No mention of who is the aggressor in this situation or the fact that you have a gun pointed at them under your jacket you could use instead.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitack our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Whats the rule about VAT on a private jet used for leisure?
Or indeed Jaffa Cakes.
Makes no difference it is included in the rules. In which case I can only assume that you resent someone for having enough money to buy a private jet (howsoever used). I hope the billions of people who live on less than $2.50/day don't have the same feelings towards you or question why you are not helping them out more than you are.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
So which members of the 'right' who do this are you concerned about exactly?
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is panies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
Yes Granny putting £500 into her IS A is exactly the same as her getting her private Jet registered in IOM so she get get a £3 million VAT refund.
I suppose most of us have an idea of what is legitimate tax avoidance, and what is taking the piss, but where does one draw the line?
It is either legal or illegal - If legal £500 or £3 million is irrelevant
I take that point, but acting legally is not necessarily the same as acting morally. If you're rich, then it's reasonable to contribute to the running of the country that enables you to enjoy your wealth (and many rich people do).
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the riceat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
No that's still not fair. He followed the law, has done nothing illegal and can therefore still proclaim love for his country. Are you saying that someone who follows the law on taxes is not allowed to be a patriot?
In my view it's simple. If you earn £10 million a year you should be paying £millions to UK Government. If you find a way of reducing that to £000s you are not a patriot.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
And yet the centre steadfastly refuses to go out on a limb. And I mean centrists from both main parties and LibDems. They have more in common with each other than they do with either lunatic wing.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
So which members of the 'right' who do this are you concerned about exactly?
As I said earlier
'The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell' and add to that Mrs Brown's boys cast, those well known members of the right
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the riceat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
No that's still not fair. He followed the law, has done nothing illegal and can therefore still proclaim love for his country. Are you saying that someone who follows the law on taxes is not allowed to be a patriot?
Allowed? Afaik people are still allowed to call themselves what they like, just as others are allowed to to point & snigger & call them a hypocrite.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
It is horse trading but I think the EU including member states do genuinely believe we are obliged.
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who arrange a holiday together. The house is booked and paid for, some activities have been booked and not paid for and others have been agreed but not booked. Joe pulls out at the last moment. Should he pay his share for some of it (the house or the house and booked activities)? None of it? All of it, including the activities that haven't been booked yet? There's no hard and fast rule. Joe's friends don't see why they should pay more or cut back when Joe agreed to it all. Joe thinks, why should I pay when I am not benefiting? This is real money that I won't have for other things.
Whether, and how much, Joe pays ultimately comes down to how highly he values the relationship with his friends. If they are people he won't see again he will feel less generous than if they are people he works and lives with intimately.
In my view it's simple. If you earn £10 million a year you should be paying £millions to UK Government. If you find a way of reducing that to £000s you are not a patriot.
What anyone? How about Usain Bolt? Or Wang Jianlin?
Thank goodness you are nowhere near power; you are embarrassing yourself enough just by posting on a politically-related website.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
Yes Granny putting £500 into her IS A is exactly the same as her getting her private Jet registered in IOM so she get get a £3 million VAT refund.
I suppose most of us have an idea of what is legitimate tax avoidance, and what is taking the piss, but where does one draw the line?
That's what well-drawn legislation and regulation is there to define - and for lawyers to argue over. Inevitably, such regulations will have to be woolly in places and refer to 'legitimate business reasons', 'genuine expenses' and the like. Initially, HMRC, and ultimately, if necessary, the Courts will have to decide on interpretations.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the riceat on the WTO in 2019.
The?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You can extend that argument ad absurdum. The country that these people love has rules about tax. Which are being followed. You then say they should pay no heed to their loved country's rules and decide to contribute more. But you could say that, in which case, about every citizen. Your marginal tax rate might be XX% but why not ignore that and pay (XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
No that's still not fair. He followed the law, has done nothing illegal and can therefore still proclaim love for his country. Are you saying that someone who follows the law on taxes is not allowed to be a patriot?
Allowed? Afaik people are still allowed to call themselves what they like, just as others are allowed to to point & snigger & call them a hypocrite.
Yes because I'm sure that all the people doing that have decided to write a cheque to HMRC over and above their due taxes. Who indeed are the hypocrites?
Drivel. They won't even agree to basic stuff that they have with loads of countries outside the EU who didn't have to pay them £50bn. That is THEIR choice to impose this on us and ONLY us. You seem to be able to forgive/ignore the behaviour of the EU in this situation whilst piling all the blame on the UK for following the will of the majority of the people in the country.
It's like saying when confronted with a mugger you have a choice to hand over your wallet and be happy about it or get stabbed in the chest. No mention of who is the aggressor in this situation or the fact that you have a gun pointed at them under your jacket you could use instead.
I am not blaming anyone. I don't accept your overblown and ridiculous premises.
In my view it's simple. If you earn £10 million a year you should be paying £millions to UK Government. If you find a way of reducing that to £000s you are not a patriot.
It's not simple though, is it? You can certainly make a moral point about someone's obligations but a moral obligation isn't a legal one and isn't enforceable - and as such, isn't of any great value other that possibly in the court of public opinion, to the extent that that matters.
So the EU is extorting money from the UK under menaces and everyone on here seems to think that's fine and dandy because we deserve to be punished for daring to leave the utopia of the EU.
Pathetic.
The UK still has a lot of weight, I don't think the government should be taking this lying down at all. Trump was talking about leaving NATO, maybe if we started making noises in that direction and setting up an alternative alliance with the US then that I imagine the "rule of law" won't be so important when they've got Russia looming to their East.
We have choices. We could do as you suggest or we can do the sensible thing that is in our interest. GIven we have the choice and no-one says we don't, talk of extorting money under menaces is ridiculous.
Drivel. They won't even agree to basic stuff that they have with loads of countries outside the EU who didn't have to pay them £50bn. That is THEIR choice to impose this on us and ONLY us. You seem to be able to forgive/ignore the behaviour of the EU in this situation whilst piling all the blame on the UK for following the will of the majority of the people in the country.
It's like saying when confronted with a mugger you have a choice to hand over your wallet and be happy about it or get stabbed in the chest. No mention of who is the aggressor in this situation or the fact that you have a gun pointed at them under your jacket you could use instead.
Erm, Brexit was a British decision. The EU isn't forcing Britain to do anything.
You might argue that the EU is being shortsighted and bureaucratic (I would). Arguing that it is acting as a mugger when it is only reacting to British actions is demented.
In my view it's simple. If you earn £10 million a year you should be paying £millions to UK Government. If you find a way of reducing that to £000s you are not a patriot.
I agree with your sentiment but that is a moral argument not a legal one. To make that happen the law needs to changed and to do that it has to be done through the OECD, not possible by one Country on it's own
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
It is horse trading but I think the EU including member states do genuinely believe we are obliged.
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who arrange a holiday together. The house is booked and paid for, some activities have been booked and not paid for and others have been agreed but not booked. Joe pulls out at the last moment. Should he pay his share for some of it (the house or the house and booked activities)? None of it? All of it, including the activities that haven't been booked yet? There's no hard and fast rule. Joe's friends don't see why they should pay more or cut back when Joe agreed to it all. Joe thinks, why should I pay when I am not benefiting? This is real money that I won't have for other things.
Whether, and how much, Joe pays ultimately comes down to how highly he values the relationship with his friends. If they are people he won't see again he will feel less generous than if they are people he works and lives with intimately.
And the next time the friends organise a holiday without Joe, should they also expect him to cough up or should they budget for their trip without him?
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
It is horse trading but I think the EU including member states do genuinely believe we are obliged.
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who arrange a holiday together. The house is booked and paid for, some activities have been booked and not paid for and others have been agreed but not booked. Joe pulls out at the last moment. Should he pay his share for some of it (the house or the house and booked activities)? None of it? All of it, including the activities that haven't been booked yet? There's no hard and fast rule. Joe's friends don't see why they should pay more or cut back when Joe agreed to it all. Joe thinks, why should I pay when I am not benefiting? This is real money that I won't have for other things.
Whether, and how much, Joe pays ultimately comes down to how highly he values the relationship with his friends. If they are people he won't see again he will feel less generous than if they are people he works and lives with intimately.
This is a crap analogy. We're continually told we're getting our moneys worth from the EU in projects that they fund in the UK and other benefits. They still want the money but stop all of the benefits to the UK. The EU budget is no longer missing 60 billion if we leave because they would (allegedly) have spent it on the UK anyway.
A better analogy would be if Joe wants to still use the house he's paid for but not socialise with the others all the time because he's realised that they are a bunch of wankers that don't have his best interests at heart. Unfortunately his "friends" are stopping him from entering the house but demanding he pays in full.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the riceat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
No that's still not fair. He followed the law, has done nothing illegal and can therefore still proclaim love for his country. Are you saying that someone who follows the law on taxes is not allowed to be a patriot?
You can claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you can never hope to spend to prevent it being used in the country you profess to love, of course.
2/2 (cont.) To my mind, a hard Brexit is the only responsible course, despite the damage it will do. The simple reason is that to do otherwise will so undermine trust in democracy as to put the links that bind society together at risk. If the country takes a decision - even a crap one - then it is entitled to see it implemented. It can then judge for itself how crap the decision was and, if it wants, take steps to reverse it. But for others to reverse it on its behalf without asking it would be to render their vote worthless and their voice worthless: what then would be their response? Likewise, to implement the measure in name but without addressing in a meaningful sense any of the grievances that drove the decision would again produce that same sense of powerlessness.
To go down that road would risk the defection of a substantial portion of the electorate to movements more extreme than have governed Britain in centuries. Even now, Labour is led by members of its far left (whatever the policy manifesto might say), and the Tories are under severe pressure from its internal right and from the external right which is propping up its support in the polls (this should not be viewed as a defect, by the way; it is how democracy is supposed to work). Nonetheless, practical politicians have a duty to demonstrate the worth of practical politics.
The stakes are enormous and leadership of the highest quality is demanded. It would be easy to get it wrong either way and in so doing, generate a demand for political revolution, which could, inter alia, bring along all sorts of unsavoury pet enthusiams along with the revolution. When the mainstream is discredited, critical thinking goes with it and much is let by, by default.
To win the case for good government, the Tories have to demonstrate good government - and that means staying aligned with the people, even when their act against their interests. Lead, yes; cajole, yes; educate, definitely. But impose at your peril.
An absolutely tremendous elucidation of conservatism, and a devastating response to the idiotic posturing of anti-democrats who would prefer cheap lattes to a functioning social contract.
Best comment I've read here for some months. Thanks David.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy around tax, I agree. I would argue that it is very hypocritical to claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you do not need in an offshore account to prevent it being used to help improve lives in the country that you profess to care so deeply about.
So which members of the 'right' who do this are you concerned about exactly?
Lord Ashford springs to mind, as does Aaron Banks.
So if we don't pay the EU tribute they won't even let our planes take off.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
No - it sounds like the Rule of Law. If we are not prepared to honour our agreements then they lapse. One of the consequences is grounded aircraft, but it is our choices and our actions that are leading to it.
Not really the rule of law, more a process of bargaining.
No. A50 states that after 2 years all our agreements lapse. That is written into the treaties we signed. It means what it says.
I meant that paying €60 bn is not a legal obligation. It's horse trading.
It is horse trading but I think the EU including member states do genuinely believe we are obliged.
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who arrange a holiday together. The house is booked and paid for, some activities have been booked and not paid for and others have been agreed but not booked. Joe pulls out at the last moment. Should he pay his share for some of it (the house or the house and booked activities)? None of it? All of it, including the activities that haven't been booked yet? There's no hard and fast rule. Joe's friends don't see why they should pay more or cut back when Joe agreed to it all. Joe thinks, why should I pay when I am not benefiting? This is real money that I won't have for other things.
Whether, and how much, Joe pays ultimately comes down to how highly he values the relationship with his friends. If they are people he won't see again he will feel less generous than if they are people he works and lives with intimately.
And the next time the friends organise a holiday without Joe, should they also expect him to cough up or should they budget for their trip without him?
I am sorry to say that Joe is arguing with his friends in that case. He is deflecting rather than addressing the issue of the holiday they did book.
The interesting thing aboutbthat thread is it clearly indicates that there is a way forward for Britain to start the process without a disorderly and chaotic exit.
And yet our leaders are determined not to take it.........
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the riceat on the WTO in 2019.
The left see high tax (especially for the wealthy) as a moral issue; and in so doing demonstrate their complete inability to understand human nature as wel as how economics works in practice.
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
But, funnily enough, high tax countries are consistently rated among the best places on earth to live.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
This argument on tax is so full of hypocrisy you couldn't make it up.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is a to care so deeply about.
You XX + 5)%?
Follow the law, of course. But do not claim very loudly to be a patriot while doing all you can to ensure that money you can never hope to spend will not be used to improve the lives of the people who live in the country you say you love.
No that's still not fair. He followed the law, has done nothing illegal and can therefore still proclaim love for his country. Are you saying that someone who follows the law on taxes is not allowed to be a patriot?
You can claim to be a patriot while hiding away money you can never hope to spend to prevent it being used in the country you profess to love, of course.
Huh? You're going to hit your deathbed penniless?
That's a pretty prescriptive set of standards you want to hold him to there, fella.
Even, even if there was any logic or sense or moral imperative of doing as you suggest, how on earth would you draw up a law which enforces it?
Comments
Firstly, bespoke arrangements, even minimal ones, take years to negotiate. So no-one wants to ground planes. But enabling them to fly has implications that need to be worked through. You need appropriate insurance, regulatory conformance, agreement on data sharing etc. And that's just for one necessary service of keeping planes flying.
Secondly, the EU reckon they are offering the UK a pathway. Pay us the €60 billion and agree citizen rights and you get the full package. They are not minded to go out of their way just because the UK baulks at that.
The new information in Lis' thread is that the EU would probably allow an Article 50 extension if it's needed to enable a deal on EU terms.
We get an indication of a trade deal with the Article 50 arrangement. There is no trade deal on offer. So it's €60 billion to clear past obligations and claims and we get a two year full fat extension and an indication of a future relationship with ongoing talks.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/06/weekend-diversion-spider-webs-on-drugs/
What's the quote from that famous 90s judgement on tax, again?
Cheers for the spider info.
Facing down the Euroloons has long been untackled business for the Tories (Cameron's cunning plan to do so having spectacularly misfired). Since whatever comes out of Brexit will never be good enough for them, this unfinished business will remain in the in-tray of the next Tory leader, for sure.
Trouble is, Mr.D, that the cold tracks are the ones where Bottas has struggled this season. If he's in second, then the gesture is far from impossible, particularly in the interest of maintaining their good relationship, but otherwise...
I am sure that there are those who would accommodate us - but there are also those who will happily insist on the letter of their law, come what may.
Assuming that they'll just abrogate any legal procedures to help us out at the eleventh hour is a huge gamble. Massive bureaucracies no not react nimbly; and in the end, we are not negotiating with an individual.
However, she needs to be certain that the sleaze allegations are out in the open and at that time undertake a cabinet reshuffle.
New blood is desparately needed though I was amazed that she chose Williamson as Defence Sec when she should have appointed a much more suitable candidate and Esther McVey to deputy whip was a silly appointment and a waste of Esther's talents.
Some think that I am a devoted TM follower but that is far from my reasoning. She has made some terrible errors and has no inter personal skills and has no prospect of leading the party into the next GE.
My support for TM is entirely pragmatic as no one in this present moment could do any better in view of the unrelenting problems admittedly some of her own making. However as someone on Sky paper review has just said that if she was TM she would just walk away and tell everyone else to get on with it and that would lead to utter chaos.
TM was a remainer and will do a deal with the EU. It pays the remainers to paint the conservative party as hard Brexiteers but in truth the conservative party are above all else practical and will not take us off the edge. That is simply unacceptable.
So to sum up, TM has no long term future, I am not blind to her faults, she is there to deliver Brexit and provide time for new rising stars to come forward to take over the party leadership and probably become PM.
Its not changing things which is the risk for the economic wellbeing of the country.
Sounds almost like an act of war doesn't it?
The man is quite simply utterly unprofessional. Or as Pepys put it, a bragging Bufflehead.
The right likes to lecture the left on patriotism, while demonstrating its own patriotism by hiding away money that can never be spent just so that some of it is not redistributed to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
If we were a net beneficiary there is no way the EU would demand that they continue to pay the rest of the money under the budget period. It's nothing to do with the rule of law.
We're not even getting the benefits that they are obligated to pay us in exchange for the money anyway.
The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell and most everyone with an ISA or pension use tax havens.
This is a matter for International law and the OECD to control
There is no evidence that TMay will get any sort of deal, and without a deal planes will be grounded.
At what point will reality finally dawn in Brexitland?
If we leave OpenSkies then all our Certificates of Airworthiness due from 1st April onwards cannot be validated and without those an aircraft has no insurance and cannot fly. All our slots in Europe become available to other airlines and there is intense competition for slots. Once they are purchased by others then they are gone.
Starting in April 2018, flights and services booking facilities, slots and venues that are in the EU or that require transit across EU airspace 12 month in advance will not be able to guarantee that in April 2019 they will be able to honour their bookings. That is 4 months away and I look forward to seeing how the Leavers explain that one away. The simplest solution is to book everything through airlines based in the EU.
But the slots are the biggest headache.
You are both as bad as each other
Seems some in the US are already calling the EU a protectionist racket
Pathetic.
The UK still has a lot of weight, I don't think the government should be taking this lying down at all. Trump was talking about leaving NATO, maybe if we started making noises in that direction and setting up an alternative alliance with the US then that I imagine the "rule of law" won't be so important when they've got Russia looming to their East.
https://twitter.com/LordBuckethead/status/927825307725455365
Perhaps we could have a Venn diagram of highly paid BBC 'talent', those who are involoved in sleazy tax avoidance and those who demand higher government spending.
If I had wealth I would do a Bill Gates and use it for the good of others
https://twitter.com/BBCRadioScot/status/927455564610916352
Now, a number of question arise out of that which I'll come to in a moment but the first thing has to be to note that it is also run by humans and humans make mistakes: nearly all decisions are decided on the basis of a balance of risks and opportunities and not everyone gets everything right. Cock-up is more frequent than conspiracy.
The second point to note is that usually growing the economy - as long as it is shared fairly (itself a contentious concept) - is the surest way of ensuring social calm: a prosperous nation is usually a contented nation, or at least, one which will indulge its passion for change in moral improvement and the like rather than riot. This, however, is not a universal rule.
Thirdly, sometimes it's also necessary in order to lessen the risk of severe social disruption to permit and even instigate moderate disruption. I've just finished reading a history of the General Strike, which bears marked similarities to the Miners' Strike of 1984-5. In both cases, the government took a bitter fight to the strikers rather than seek compromise. In both cases, it did so because to do otherwise would have unbalanced the distribution of power in the country to such an extent that it could have proven ungovernable, or only governable at the cost of great violence.
So to Brexit. Whether Cameron was right to call his referendum is now beside the point; it has happened (though let's note in passing that the Lib Dems were quite happy to offer an In/Out referendum in 2005 with In linked not to a loosening of ties but to further integration). The question is therefore whether the government is right to implement the decision of the referendum and if so, how. (cont ...)
To go down that road would risk the defection of a substantial portion of the electorate to movements more extreme than have governed Britain in centuries. Even now, Labour is led by members of its far left (whatever the policy manifesto might say), and the Tories are under severe pressure from its internal right and from the external right which is propping up its support in the polls (this should not be viewed as a defect, by the way; it is how democracy is supposed to work). Nonetheless, practical politicians have a duty to demonstrate the worth of practical politics.
The stakes are enormous and leadership of the highest quality is demanded. It would be easy to get it wrong either way and in so doing, generate a demand for political revolution, which could, inter alia, bring along all sorts of unsavoury pet enthusiams along with the revolution. When the mainstream is discredited, critical thinking goes with it and much is let by, by default.
To win the case for good government, the Tories have to demonstrate good government - and that means staying aligned with the people, even when their act against their interests. Lead, yes; cajole, yes; educate, definitely. But impose at your peril.
What would a reasonable organisation that appreciates the massive payments the UK has made over the last 40 years do in this situation? Not this. They want to do as much damage to the UK as possible and thank fuck people like that are eventually not going to hold this power over us.
It's like saying when confronted with a mugger you have a choice to hand over your wallet and be happy about it or get stabbed in the chest. No mention of who is the aggressor in this situation or the fact that you have a gun pointed at them under your jacket you could use instead.
Makes no difference it is included in the rules. In which case I can only assume that you resent someone for having enough money to buy a private jet (howsoever used). I hope the billions of people who live on less than $2.50/day don't have the same feelings towards you or question why you are not helping them out more than you are.
'The BBC pension funds, the Guardian, the Labour Party HQ, John McDonnell' and add to that Mrs Brown's boys cast, those well known members of the right
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who arrange a holiday together. The house is booked and paid for, some activities have been booked and not paid for and others have been agreed but not booked. Joe pulls out at the last moment. Should he pay his share for some of it (the house or the house and booked activities)? None of it? All of it, including the activities that haven't been booked yet? There's no hard and fast rule. Joe's friends don't see why they should pay more or cut back when Joe agreed to it all. Joe thinks, why should I pay when I am not benefiting? This is real money that I won't have for other things.
Whether, and how much, Joe pays ultimately comes down to how highly he values the relationship with his friends. If they are people he won't see again he will feel less generous than if they are people he works and lives with intimately.
Thank goodness you are nowhere near power; you are embarrassing yourself enough just by posting on a politically-related website.
You might argue that the EU is being shortsighted and bureaucratic (I would). Arguing that it is acting as a mugger when it is only reacting to British actions is demented.
A better analogy would be if Joe wants to still use the house he's paid for but not socialise with the others all the time because he's realised that they are a bunch of wankers that don't have his best interests at heart. Unfortunately his "friends" are stopping him from entering the house but demanding he pays in full.
Best comment I've read here for some months. Thanks David.
And yet our leaders are determined not to take it.........
Puzzling and worrying.
That's a pretty prescriptive set of standards you want to hold him to there, fella.
Even, even if there was any logic or sense or moral imperative of doing as you suggest, how on earth would you draw up a law which enforces it?