No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
Yr Iaith Cymraeg uses a Brythonic grammar system, not English, which is a Germanic language.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
The latest Yougov poll giving Labour a 3% lead implies a swing from Con to Lab of 2.7% since June when the Tories led by 2.4%. On the basis of a universal swing that would result in 35 Labour gains from the Tories.In addition, Labour could reasonably expect circa 20 gains at the expense of the SNP and Arfon from Plaid - enough to put them just short of 320 seats.
It gives Labour 297 and Tories 283 on UNS so would be the closest general election result since WW2 especially given current Scottish Westminster polls have no change from June
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
More people would switch from EU to British meat in the UK and any non EU meat will still face tariffs to the domestic market unlike UK meat even if FTAs are agreed with the rest of the world (which will take years to negotiate anyway just like an EU FTA)
We would eat less EU meat, correct. Meat from third countries will face tariff quotas that those third countries agree to. They are unlikely to be accommodating and a number of exporting countries have already shot an arrow across our bow.
The latest Yougov poll giving Labour a 3% lead implies a swing from Con to Lab of 2.7% since June when the Tories led by 2.4%. On the basis of a universal swing that would result in 35 Labour gains from the Tories.In addition, Labour could reasonably expect circa 20 gains at the expense of the SNP and Arfon from Plaid - enough to put them just short of 320 seats.
It gives Labour 297 and Tories 283 on UNS so would be the closest general election result since WW2 especially given current Scottish Westminster polls have no change from June
No it does not. A swing of 2.7% would lead to 35 Tory seats falling to Labour. In addition, Labour could expect significant gains from the SNP.
You said of the UK ' is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.'
Clearly it isn't.
Actually, English is the most widely spoken in that it is used in many, many places, often as a second or trade lnaguage
Mandarin has the most speakers of any language but it is not widespread geographically.
My copy of Ethnologue says otherwise.
Ok
I am not really that bothered.
I love speaking foreign languages, and I wanted to add to the list last summer, and the short list was between Spanish, Italian, and Chinese.
And it quite clearly said Mandarin was the world's most widely spoken language.
It probably is. But care needs to be taken. Mandarin is a GROUP of languages, spoken by around 70% of Chinese as a first language. However, many of these are mutually unintelligible if similar. (Think German and Dutch, or Spanish and Portugeuse). Of course, children are taught Beijing Mandarin in school, but its usefulness (outside business and official circles) declines the further you get from the Capital. Taiwan and Singapore teach Mandarin in schools, but the accent is very different. It helps though that all Chinese languages (including the Southern ones, such as Cantonese and Fujianese), are WRITTEN the same.
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's democracy, plus with the violence threatened by Farage and other Leavers, not honouring the Brexit result will result in blood on the streets, no PM will want to take a bullet from a Leaver.
Let us say there's another referendum and Remain wins, Leavers will argue for another referendum.
Much better to Leave and then argue to Rejoin after the country experiences what being outside of the EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
You will be surprised how many places in the US there are where an English accent is incomprehensible. Many's the time outside the major cities when people simply have not been able to understand even my very light North London accent.
Tangier Island off the East Coast of the UK is supposed to have the closest accent to Old English of the 17th Century of anywhere in the world.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
And a change in the type of crops grown - if there is no European labour to pick fruit etc farmers will move toward things like grains and sugarbeet which can be planted and harvested entirely by machine.
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's Leaver.
Let another referendum.
Much EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
You will be surprised how many places in the US there are where an English accent is incomprehensible. Many's the time outside the major cities when people simply have not been able to understand even my very light North London accent.
I have often felt the same when living in Wales where they even have their own native language it does not change the fact English is the main language.
Or that a lot of Americans do not understand English accents, let alone Scottish or Welsh ones. Northern Irish ones they seem to have a lot less trouble with - which is probably not a huge surprise.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
So where is the change in that prediction from current trends?
The latest Yougov poll giving Labour a 3% lead implies a swing from Con to Lab of 2.7% since June when the Tories led by 2.4%. On the basis of a universal swing that would result in 35 Labour gains from the Tories.In addition, Labour could reasonably expect circa 20 gains at the expense of the SNP and Arfon from Plaid - enough to put them just short of 320 seats.
It gives Labour 297 and Tories 283 on UNS so would be the closest general election result since WW2 especially given current Scottish Westminster polls have no change from June
Not as close as February 1974 - and a similar margin as 1964 .
Thanks for the heads up. I just took £250 at evens - mental odds! Should be about 1.1
I think 1.1 would be a bit skinny but I've been backing Yes too. Betfair's rules are a tangled mess but the bold bit is key.
For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date.
IIRC they didn't originally specify whether they meant before the end of 29/3/19 or before the start of it, which is why I didn't bet on it previously.
It's now effectively a market on Article 50 either being withdrawn or extended. Neither looks very feasible legally or politically, given the definite need in the latter case for 28-member unanimity. And, Lord Kerr notwithstanding, so probably does withdrawal of the notice.
The latest Yougov poll giving Labour a 3% lead implies a swing from Con to Lab of 2.7% since June when the Tories led by 2.4%. On the basis of a universal swing that would result in 35 Labour gains from the Tories.In addition, Labour could reasonably expect circa 20 gains at the expense of the SNP and Arfon from Plaid - enough to put them just short of 320 seats.
It gives Labour 297 and Tories 283 on UNS so would be the closest general election result since WW2 especially given current Scottish Westminster polls have no change from June
No it does not. A swing of 2.7% would lead to 35 Tory seats falling to Labour. In addition, Labour could expect significant gains from the SNP.
Yes and given the Tories are on 318 seats that means 283 Tory seats, 21 more than Corbyn has now.
As I said there is no net change at all from SNP to Labour since June in the latest Scottish Westminster poll.
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's democracy, plus with the violence threatened by Farage and other Leavers, not honouring the Brexit result will result in blood on the streets, no PM will want to take a bullet from a Leaver.
Let us say there's another referendum and Remain wins, Leavers will argue for another referendum.
Much better to Leave and then argue to Rejoin after the country experiences what being outside of the EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
The world.
In to the world.
American London English.
Up into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
You will be surprised how many places in the US there are where an English accent is incomprehensible. Many's the time outside the major cities when people simply have not been able to understand even my very light North London accent.
Tangier Island off the East Coast of the UK is supposed to have the closest accent to Old English of the 17th Century of anywhere in the world.
Yep - I think there are a few once remote communities in an around Chesapeke bay where that is the case. Sadly, they are dying out now because of better communications, the internet etc. The good news is that they have all been recorded. There are also some very strange hybrids on the eastern Canadian coast - Newfoundland being one!
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's democracy, plus with the violence threatened by Farage and other Leavers, not honouring the Brexit result will result in blood on the streets, no PM will want to take a bullet from a Leaver.
Let us say there's another referendum o Rejoin after the country experiences what being outside of the EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
We have plenty, but much of it is tied into our EU membership and will be significantly harmed when we leave. Sadly, it seems the one thing the government is agreed on is that internal Tory politics dictate we cannot have a relationship with the EU along the lines enjoyed by any of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland or Liechtenstein.
We will have a relationship with the EU along the lines enjoyed by Canada, what a disaster!
For financial services companies that sell into the European market, yes it will be very bad indeed. Luckily they are not that important to the UK. Not great news for farmers either, but who cares about them?
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City
The City remaining the largest financial centre in Europe is not incompatible with it losing a large amount of business to many other centres and, more important, with it generating a lot less taxable income for the UK.
Yet it will still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and crucially we will replace free movement with a points system as Leave voters voted to do.
Where do Leave voters stand on the Arsene Wenger issue?
Thanks for the heads up. I just took £250 at evens - mental odds! Should be about 1.1
I think 1.1 would be a bit skinny but I've been backing Yes too. Betfair's rules are a tangled mess but the bold bit is key.
For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date.
IIRC they didn't originally specify whether they meant before the end of 29/3/19 or before the start of it, which is why I didn't bet on it previously.
It's now effectively a market on Article 50 either being withdrawn or extended. Neither looks very feasible legally or politically, given the definite need in the latter case for 28-member unanimity. And, Lord Kerr notwithstanding, so probably does withdrawal of the notice.
The latest Yougov poll giving Labour a 3% lead implies a swing from Con to Lab of 2.7% since June when the Tories led by 2.4%. On the basis of a universal swing that would result in 35 Labour gains from the Tories.In addition, Labour could reasonably expect circa 20 gains at the expense of the SNP and Arfon from Plaid - enough to put them just short of 320 seats.
It gives Labour 297 and Tories 283 on UNS so would be the closest general election result since WW2 especially given current Scottish Westminster polls have no change from June
No it does not. A swing of 2.7% would lead to 35 Tory seats falling to Labour. In addition, Labour could expect significant gains from the SNP.
Yes and given the Tories are on 318 seats that means 283 Tory seats. So that is clearly the closest general election result since WW2, even closer than February 1974 in seat terms.
As I said there is no net change at all from SNP to Labour since June in the latest Scottish Westminster poll.
February 1974 had Labour on 301 and the Tories on 296. 1964 saw Labour on 317 with the Tories having 304.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up to a point Lord Copper. There are a lot of differences in vocabulary although that is lessening as British English adopts American words (e.g. "airplane" is driving "aeroplane" out of British usage) and even vice versa to a lesser extent ("cheers" for "thanks" is becoming commonplace at least in NYC and its environs). There are arguably different grammatical features too: American English has never met a noun it didn't fancy turning into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
Sometimes it could have helped. When we first moved to NYC other half sent me down to the Duane Reade to get some semi-skimmed milk for our coffee. What she didn't mention was I should have been looking for "2%" milk. Instead I saw "half and half" and thought "ah, 'half' == 'semi', that must be it." It tasted good (it's half milk and half cream) but it began the expansion of my waistline which has been a feature of my life in the US.
Interestingly I have had least success in communicating with fellow immigrants but from non-English speaking countries as they have attuned their ears to the American accents and find mine much more difficult.
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's democracy, plus with the violence threatened by Farage and other Leavers, not honouring the Brexit result will result in blood on the streets, no PM will want to take a bullet from a Leaver.
Let us say there's another referendum and Remain wins, Leavers will argue for another referendum.
Much better to Leave and then argue to Rejoin after the country experiences what being outside of the EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up to a point Lord Copper. There are a lot of differences in vocabulary although that is lessening as British English adopts American words (e.g. "airplane" is driving "aeroplane" out of British usage) and even vice versa to a lesser extent ("cheers" for "thanks" is becoming commonplace at least in NYC and its environs). There are arguably different grammatical features too: American English has never met a noun it didn't fancy turning into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norw people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up to a point Lord Copper. There are a lot of differences in vocabulary although that is lessening as British English adopts American words (e.g. "airplane" is driving "aeroplane" out of British usage) and even vice versa to a lesser extent ("cheers" for "thanks" is becoming commonplace at least in NYC and its environs). There are arguably different grammatical features too: American English has never met a noun it didn't fancy turning into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
Sometimes it could have helped. When we first moved to NYC other half sent me down to the Duane Reade to get some semi-skimmed milk for our coffee. What she didn't mention was I should have been looking for "2%" milk. Instead I saw "half and half" and thought "ah, 'half' == 'semi', that must be it." It tasted good (it's half milk and half cream) but it began the expansion of my waistline which has been a feature of my life in the US.
Interestingly I have least success in communicating with fellow immigrants but from non-English speaking countries as they have attuned their ears to the American accents and find mine much more difficult.
Didn't they do some research which found that American plates are larger and hence they eat more food. Sounds trivially simple but apparently is the case.
I remember in the US I once ordered "potato skins" and was presented with 18 halves of potato deep fried, covered in cheese, bacon, etc. They were not skins, they had simply cut nine potatoes in half. Quite large ones as well. Absolutely delicious, that said.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norw people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up to a point Lord Copper. There are a lot of differences in vocabulary although that is lessening as British English adopts American words (e.g. "airplane" is driving "aeroplane" out of British usage) and even vice versa to a lesser extent ("cheers" for "thanks" is becoming commonplace at least in NYC and its environs). There are arguably different grammatical features too: American English has never met a noun it didn't fancy turning into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
Sometimes it could have helped. When we first moved to NYC other half sent me down to the Duane Reade to get some semi-skimmed milk for our coffee. What she didn't mention was I should have been looking for "2%" milk. Instead I saw "half and half" and thought "ah, 'half' == 'semi', that must be it." It tasted good (it's half milk and half cream) but it began the expansion of my waistline which has been a feature of my life in the US.
Interestingly I have least success in communicating with fellow immigrants but from non-English speaking countries as they have attuned their ears to the American accents and find mine much more difficult.
Didn't they do some research which found that American plates are larger and hence they eat more food. Sounds trivially simple but apparently is the case.
Portions are definitely bigger there (I am on business in Stockholm right now), but it's not unexpected that you'll only eat half of your dish at the restaurant and take the rest to go. if we order a takeaway it's usually enough for dinner and lunch the next day at least.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
I am totally bought into the idea that the Anglo Saxon invasion was an elite replacing an elite. I am less convinced on the language because that does not seem to be reflected in written texts, though I guess that what could have been happening is that the written language was controlled by the elite and so did not reflect the language being spoken on the ground. I think it's also important to understand the importance of dialects. Those in the north reflected a much stronger Viking influence than those in the south, but it was the southern ones that eventually came out on top and which were exported to the US Anglo elite.
Plus the point about the language is idiotic. The fact that English is widely spoken defeats the point Chemical HYUFD was trying to make. Last time I looked we don't get a commission every time someone uses English and the fact that a lot of people do use and speak it means we don't have any particular competitive advantage by having thought it up in the first place.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
So where is the change in that prediction from current trends?
In the pace and scale. But I basically agree with you. While Brexit will probably devastate present farmers, farming itself will carry on.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Nope. There is no reason to expect that there will automatically be an easing of tariff quotas and of course there will be an inevitable drop in imports from EU countries if there is a corresponding barrier to UK exports.
You want to claim that only those things that will adversely affect farming are going to happen whilst ignoring that there is a flip side to every coin.
For reference, according to the NFU in 2014 we exported 16 billion Euros worth of produce to the EU but imported 40 billion Euros worth. In any situation where that trade is interrupted there is massive scope for UK farmers to increase their home market.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norw people.
The UK has ... ??
The largest financial centre in the world and the world's 5th largest economy and is the home of the most widely spoken language in the world.
In my experience American English has largely superseded British English. Even in Hong Kong these days there is an American twang to the way the locals speak our greatest gift to the world.
American English is still English, the words are almost exactly the same just spoken in a slightly different accent but you could say the same about Geordie and London English.
Up to a point Lord Copper. There are a lot of differences in vocabulary although that is lessening as British English adopts American words (e.g. "airplane" is driving "aeroplane" out of British usage) and even vice versa to a lesser extent ("cheers" for "thanks" is becoming commonplace at least in NYC and its environs). There are arguably different grammatical features too: American English has never met a noun it didn't fancy turning into a verb.
All pretty negligible, you do not need to take a dictionary or translator to go to the USA.
Sometimes it could have helped. When we first moved to NYC other half sent me down to the Duane Reade to get some semi-skimmed milk for our coffee. What she didn't mention was I should have been looking for "2%" milk. Instead I saw "half and half" and thought "ah, 'half' == 'semi', that must be it." It tasted good (it's half milk and half cream) but it began the expansion of my waistline which has been a feature of my life in the US.
Interestingly more difficult.
Didn't they do some research which found that American plates are larger and hence they eat more food. Sounds trivially simple but apparently is the case.
I remember in the US I once ordered "potato skins" and was presented with 18 halves of potato deep fried, covered in cheese, bacon, etc. They were not skins, they had simply cut nine potatoes in half. Quite large ones as well. Absolutely delicious, that said.
Surely portions in the US are huge because that reflects a brave new world of plenty. It's a multi-ethnic immigrant society collectively making a statement about no longer going hungry.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
There isn't much certainty about it. I like the theory that English is actually a creole (that is, a language developed by the children of pidgin speakers who take over the pidgin and instinctively provide it with grammar and syntax). If true, it deals a blow to a lot of stuff about racial purity.
Plus the point about the language is idiotic. The fact that English is widely spoken defeats the point Chemical HYUFD was trying to make. Last time I looked we don't get a commission every time someone uses English and the fact that a lot of people do use and speak it means we don't have any particular competitive advantage by having thought it up in the first place.
I mean Jeez.
Of course we do, it is the main language of business so gives London and UK businesses a natural advantage as a result.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Surely portions in the US are huge because that reflects a brave new world of plenty. It's a multi-ethnic immigrant society collectively making a statement about no longer going hungry.
The trouble with huge American portions is when you have been brought up by parents who lived through WW2. You were expected, as a kid, to eat everything on your plate. The Americans expect you to graze - and not feel remotely bad about sending huge amounts back. Which of course, is alien to us. So we plough on, stoically, through that 18th potato/skin....
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Intriguing but doesn't matter even if 90% think it is wrong, Brexit will happen.
"It's an effing crazy idea, but we should do it anyway" ?
That's democracy, plus with the violence threatened by Farage and other Leavers, not honouring the Brexit result will result in blood on the streets, no PM will want to take a bullet from a Leaver.
Let us say there's another referendum and Remain wins, Leavers will argue for another referendum.
Much better to Leave and then argue to Rejoin after the country experiences what being outside of the EU means.
Yes Switzerland and Norway are poverty stricken hell holes outside the EU aren't they
Did I say that? Did I?
Stop inventing straw men.
Quite. Look at the four countries outside the EU.
1 Norway has $750 billion in the bank from investing some of its oil revenue. For 5 million people. 2 Switzerland looks after half the world's money in return for a few S.Fr. For 8-9 milion people. 3 Liechtenstein is a much smaller version of Switzerland, except for having a monarch. 4 Iceland is surrounded by fish a.k.a. the North Atlantic and has almost free geothermal heating. For 300,000 people.
The UK has ... ??
Surplus wind in Scotland at this time of the year.
Plus the point about the language is idiotic. The fact that English is widely spoken defeats the point Chemical HYUFD was trying to make. Last time I looked we don't get a commission every time someone uses English and the fact that a lot of people do use and speak it means we don't have any particular competitive advantage by having thought it up in the first place.
I mean Jeez.
We do business in the Middle East. Our clients expect to receive reports in English. They all speak English. No probs for us. More of a chew on for our French and German competitors who can only send English speakers to meetings and incur translation costs. Sound like a competitive advantage to me.
Plus the point about the language is idiotic. The fact that English is widely spoken defeats the point Chemical HYUFD was trying to make. Last time I looked we don't get a commission every time someone uses English and the fact that a lot of people do use and speak it means we don't have any particular competitive advantage by having thought it up in the first place.
I mean Jeez.
No, but it is relevant when 'the biggest barrier to trade is language'
Different way of looking at most widely as opposed to most commonly spoken languages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41939068 "Production rose by 0.7% compared with the month before, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, boosted by machinery and equipment output.
Separate data showed the UK's trade deficit in goods and services narrowed by more than expected in September.
However, construction output fell by 1.6% in the month, the ONS said."
The bizarre reporting of construction continues. It falls every month and yet increases every year. A reduction in the trade deficit is welcome but there is a very long way to go.
Your bet with RCS of 1.5% or more GDP growth is looking good.
Not really, its pretty touch and go. Q1 was a bit of a blow and the lost ground has not quite been made up.
Mr. Nabavi, Kerr and the EU are prime consumers and creators of fudge. If it's convenient for them, they'd fudge it.
In the same way they were happy to change the font and chapter order of the the Constitution, rename it the Lisbon Treaty, and pretend it was completely different.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
He does seem to be wibbling quite a lot. His wibblings are important, though, in that while English law simply won't admit evidence of the draftsman's intention (except to the extent that you can deduce it from the wording) continental systems including the ECJ are more than happy to look at the travaux preparatoires underlying the document.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Which would hold up those FTAs anyway from the UK side.
Meanwhile higher tariffs on EU imports until a FTA is agreed will see more UK consumers buy British.
Surplus wind in Scotland at this time of the year.
Much the same on PB
I was actually referencing their generating nearly 2x their domestic electricity requirement, and have no idea why this should be a source of amusement.....
The boost Brexit will give not only to our European competitor financial centres let alone the US and Asian centres is going to have an interesting impact on this study in future years. The biggest boom area in the City at the moment is firms Brexit related hiring in compliance, risk, HR, IT and project management. The Brexit flight of people, HQs, banking assets, fund assets and securities business is going to be interesting to watch.
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Nope. There is no reason to expect that there will automatically be an easing of tariff quotas and of course there will be an inevitable drop in imports from EU countries if there is a corresponding barrier to UK exports.
You want to claim that only those things that will adversely affect farming are going to happen whilst ignoring that there is a flip side to every coin.
For reference, according to the NFU in 2014 we exported 16 billion Euros worth of produce to the EU but imported 40 billion Euros worth. In any situation where that trade is interrupted there is massive scope for UK farmers to increase their home market.
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Which would hold up those FTAs anyway from the UK side.
Meanwhile higher tariffs on EU imports until a FTA is agreed will see more UK consumers buy British.
paying higher prices and a reduced choice of items.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
He does seem to be wibbling quite a lot. His wibblings are important, though, in that while English law simply won't admit evidence of the draftsman's intention (except to the extent that you can deduce it from the wording) continental systems including the ECJ are more than happy to look at the travaux preparatoires underlying the document.
That is constitutional law in a nutshell - even when you have the framers at hand to tell you, their 'intent' is often judged as diametrically opposed to what they intended.
(US constitutional law manages to be yet more ridiculous in this respect.)
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Even on the Bank of England's worst forecasts for Brexit and no deal at all the City of London would still remain the largest financial centre in Europe and of course a Canada deal respects the Leave vote and ensures free movement ends. Given rising prices of EU meat, tariffs may even help farmers in the UK market as more buy British
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
The boost Brexit will give not only to our European competitor financial centres let alone the US and Asian centres is going to have an interesting impact on this study in future years. The biggest boom area in the City at the moment is firms Brexit related hiring in compliance, risk, HR, IT and project management. The Brexit flight of people, HQs, banking assets, fund assets and securities business is going to be interesting to watch.
The gap may close a little but London will still certainly be number 1 in Europe, Zurich its closest competitor is of course not in the EU or EEA now.
No, it originated in northern Germany and Friesland.
No it didn't. One might just as easily say it originated in Norway or Normandy. In fact it originated in England. English is a hybrid language and unusual in that it uses an Anglo-French vocabulary but a Brythonic grammar system which makes it far more adaptable than other Indo-European languages.
No, the base of the English language is the language spoken in Friesland and Northern Germany in the early middle ages. The absorption of some Viking and some French words and structures, and - crucially - a simplifying of grammatical structures in the later middle ages saw the birth of modern English.
I am afraid both you and daodao are very much out of date with language studies as far as the grammatical structure of English is concerned. It is now generally accepted that English uses a Brythonic grammatical structure which is thought to be indicative of the adoption of an imported language by an existing pre Saxon population. It is one of the key bases for the modern view of the Anglo Saxon invasions as being the replacement of an elite rather than of a whole population. The simplification you speak of is now recognised as having happened much earlier than previously thought.
Any refs for that bit about Brythonic grammar? I'd not heard that before.
I has been an argument for many years (going back into the seventies at least). It is worth looking up 'Do-periphrasis' and also the 'Northern Subject Rule' which are both key topics in the arguments.
For a layman's introduction it is covered by Francis Pryor in his book on sub-Roman Britain
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
Farmers would be subject to tariff quotas effectively limiting the amount they can sell to the EU. We would do our own trade deals with third countries, which will open our markets to foreign produce. Farmers face a the double whammy of being shut out of their biggest export market by far, while having to compete with a flood of cheap imports in their home market.
As net importers of food and feed there is an oddity about all this somewhere. Farmers are very good at survival, I have a sneaking suspicion they will adapt and survive, just like most business.
The rich farmlands of Lincolnshire will continue to be farmed. They are not going to return to scrub. The probable consequences of Brexit are widespread bankruptcy amongst existing farmers, a fall in land values, the consolidation of farming into much larger farms and the elimination of marginal farms, particularly in the uplands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wrong in almost every respect.
Farmers are businesses subject to market forces and the law of supply and demand. Default Brexit means less demand for their produce as they are substantially shut out of their main export market. At the same time supply in their home market increases as tariff quotas are eased on imports from third countries. The result is a sudden and significant fall in farm gate prices, by possibly as much as 50%. The rest follows on from there.
Except no foreign FTAs are likely to be concluded any quicker than an EU UK FTA especially if the UK government holds them up over agricultural imports issues
It's not as straightforward as that. The UK wants to "roll over" FTAs that have been agreed between the EU and third countries so that they would apply to the UK after Brexit. This gives those countries the opportunity to say, "not so fast". The existing EU tariff quotas need to be disaggregated and they have already run into headwinds on that.
Isn't that a problem for the EU too?
It is a problem for the EU too.
Strange how that's rarely mentioned......
The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
As this government gets on with the business of leaving the European Union, I want to make sure that the road ahead is clear. As the EU Withdrawal Bill enters Committee Stage in Parliament next week, we want to put the precise date and time of our exit on the first page. On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU. This date and time is being put into law. Which means that from 11pm on 29 March 2019, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. Our laws will once again be made in our country. And the courts that interpret those laws will sit here in Britain. It also means that the existing body of EU law will become British law. So this provides certainty and clarity for all businesses and families across the country from the very moment we leave the EU. However people voted in the referendum, I believe that the country now wants all parties to come together and negotiate the best possible Brexit deal for Britain. And let me be clear. We will not tolerate attempts to use the passage of this Bill as a way of slowing down or blocking our withdrawal from the EU. The British people were clear. And this government is clear. On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU. So read and share my op-ed to let your friends know:
Sincerely,
Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
Theresa May Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Yes it does.
Article 50(2): "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ..."
Which unhelpfully conflates the two different things - but it doesn't really matter because despite what Lord Kerr says, that's not the crucial clause. The crucial one is 50(3):
Article 50(3): "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And the crucial phase is "shall cease to apply". There is no 'unless' there; there is no provision for revoking notification; it is absolute - shall cease to apply. There's nothing to prevent a country from notifying a decision to not withdraw but it would have no effective standing because Article 50(3) would still apply.
The decisive event is the notification, not the intent that might have gone into it.
The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Yes it does.
Article 50(2): "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ..."
Which unhelpfully conflates the two different things - but it doesn't really matter because despite what Lord Kerr says, that's not the crucial clause. The crucial one is 50(3):
Article 50(3): "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And the crucial phase is "shall cease to apply". There is no 'unless' there; there is no provision for revoking notification; it is absolute - shall cease to apply. There's nothing to prevent a country from notifying a decision to not withdraw but it would have no effective standing because Article 50(3) would still apply.
The decisive event is the notification, not the intent that might have gone into it.
My mistake, and, yes you are right about 50(3).
Edit: Further, your interpretation is made even stronger by the presence of an 'unless' in relation to extending the period.
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
Possibly except the products we export to the EU are different from those we import from them. I believe that the products we export more of such as meat would be more prevalent to TRQs and those that we import more of, such as vegetables, would be subject to fewer TRQs, but I am not sure. Ireland certainly exports a lot of meat and milk products to the UK and would be badly affected.
The boost Brexit will give not only to our European competitor financial centres let alone the US and Asian centres is going to have an interesting impact on this study in future years. The biggest boom area in the City at the moment is firms Brexit related hiring in compliance, risk, HR, IT and project management. The Brexit flight of people, HQs, banking assets, fund assets and securities business is going to be interesting to watch.
The gap may close a little but London will still certainly be number 1 in Europe, Zurich its closest competitor is of course not in the EU or EEA now.
Zurich is not the number two financial centre in Europe. While it's strong in private wealth management, it's weak in institutional fund management, corporate finance, investment research, sales & trading. Indeed, I doubt it's top five in any of those sectors.
If you were to rank European financial centres by importance, you'd have London way out in front, followed by Frankfurt, then a gap before Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam all together.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't understand why Lord Kerr thinks as he does about withdrawal of the Article 50 notification. What he says is:
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
He does seem to be wibbling quite a lot. His wibblings are important, though, in that while English law simply won't admit evidence of the draftsman's intention (except to the extent that you can deduce it from the wording) continental systems including the ECJ are more than happy to look at the travaux preparatoires underlying the document.
Doesnt it have to be contemporaneous wibbling ? Wibbling after the fact because people did something you didnt expect them to do, having written your text largely for effect not expecting anyone to actually use it, would seem to be rather less pertinent.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
Possibly except the products we export to the EU are different from those we import from them. I believe that the products we export more of such as meat would be more prevalent to TRQs and those that we import more of, such as vegetables, would be subject to fewer TRQs, but I am not sure. Ireland certainly exports a lot of meat and milk products to the UK and would be badly affected.
The NFU's view is :
"Price changes due to Brexit have a positive impact on farm incomes in all sectors under the FTA and WTO default scenario. In case of a UK Trade Liberalisation scenario, the livestock sector will face price declines, and subsequently its income is negatively affected."
It is well worth reading as it seems their overwhelming concern is the level of subsidy rather than any likely damage to trade.
That might be because of the numbers in the table in appendix 1 which show just how much we import as opposed to export from/to the EU in almost every sector. Indeed the only sectors where we have a trade surplus appear to be fish, products of animal origin (which is a specialist area excluding foods) leather and wool.
The boost Brexit will give not only to our European competitor financial centres let alone the US and Asian centres is going to have an interesting impact on this study in future years. The biggest boom area in the City at the moment is firms Brexit related hiring in compliance, risk, HR, IT and project management. The Brexit flight of people, HQs, banking assets, fund assets and securities business is going to be interesting to watch.
The gap may close a little but London will still certainly be number 1 in Europe, Zurich its closest competitor is of course not in the EU or EEA now.
Zurich is not the number two financial centre in Europe. While it's strong in private wealth management, it's weak in institutional fund management, corporate finance, investment research, sales & trading. Indeed, I doubt it's top five in any of those sectors.
If you were to rank European financial centres by importance, you'd have London way out in front, followed by Frankfurt, then a gap before Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam all together.
Dublin might get a leg up but Frankfurt is the clear number two.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
I don't know why everyone is so worried about the Irish border. We'll implement a system like that between Switzerland and various EU states. Regular cars, buses, etc. will travel across the it without problems. Lorries and commercial vehicles will be expected to fill in cargo manifests ahead of time (if appropriate), and there will be occasional spot checks.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
Robert, you are missing the drama of all of this. Don't you realise that this is the very end of civilisation as we know it?
The EU also having a problem doesn't of itself help our farmers. Even if they wanted to keep the current regime, they are barred from doing so by WTO rules that say every country has to be treated equally. So if they opened their markets to us, they would have to do the same for Australia, Brazil etc. Being in a customs union would be helpful but the UK has said no to that.
According to the NFU study Brexit will result in an increase in income for farmers as far as sales are concerned. However it will result in a massive decrease if direct subsidies are removed. Basically Brexit is good for farmers as long as they continue to get their handouts at the current levels.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.
We are becoming independent and we have a budget deficit. So the spongers can sod off.
As this government gets on with the business of leaving the European Union, I want to make sure that the road ahead is clear. As the EU Withdrawal Bill enters Committee Stage in Parliament next week, we want to put the precise date and time of our exit on the first page. On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU. This date and time is being put into law. Which means that from 11pm on 29 March 2019, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. Our laws will once again be made in our country. And the courts that interpret those laws will sit here in Britain. It also means that the existing body of EU law will become British law. So this provides certainty and clarity for all businesses and families across the country from the very moment we leave the EU. However people voted in the referendum, I believe that the country now wants all parties to come together and negotiate the best possible Brexit deal for Britain. And let me be clear. We will not tolerate attempts to use the passage of this Bill as a way of slowing down or blocking our withdrawal from the EU. The British people were clear. And this government is clear. On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU. So read and share my op-ed to let your friends know:
Sincerely,
Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
Theresa May Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
or, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, USA etc. with their cheaper produce take over. Both EU and UK farmers will lose. UK farmers, selfish to the last moment, expect their subsidies to continue.
Failing to pass the EU Withdrawal Bill might leave a bloody mess, but it won't stop us being out after 2 years as per Article 50, the EU is not bound by what we do or dont get through parliament.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Having a favourable FS in Britain might be sort of handy for them jsut at the minute... Mind you in 1980 they got to choose the US President - so this is pretty small potatoes really.
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
or, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, USA etc. with their cheaper produce take over. Both EU and UK farmers will lose. UK farmers, selfish to the last moment, expect their subsidies to continue.
Now there's a saving.
And we increase our structural trade deficit yet further. Not attractive.
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Having a favourable FS in Britain might be sort of handy for them jsut at the minute... Mind you in 1980 they got to choose the US President - so this is pretty small potatoes really.
Very true, and IIRC their assessment of Reagan was such that they decided to release the hostages before he took office. I think that was probably wise...
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
Possibly except the products we export to the EU are different from those we import from them. I believe that the products we export more of such as meat would be more prevalent to TRQs and those that we import more of, such as vegetables, would be subject to fewer TRQs, but I am not sure. Ireland certainly exports a lot of meat and milk products to the UK and would be badly affected.
The NFU's view is :
"Price changes due to Brexit have a positive impact on farm incomes in all sectors under the FTA and WTO default scenario. In case of a UK Trade Liberalisation scenario, the livestock sector will face price declines, and subsequently its income is negatively affected."
It is well worth reading as it seems their overwhelming concern is the level of subsidy rather than any likely damage to trade.
That might be because of the numbers in the table in appendix 1 which show just how much we import as opposed to export from/to the EU in almost every sector. Indeed the only sectors where we have a trade surplus appear to be fish, products of animal origin (which is a specialist area excluding foods) leather and wool.
A partial Trade Liberalisation scenario is the correct one, I think. Tariff rate quotas will be increased but not eliminated. The NFU, on my understanding, think the imposition of UK tariffs (and therefore higher prices) on EU imports will balance the lower cost of a greater amount of non-European imports, leading to higher prices for horticulture and crops and lower prices for livestock.
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Yes, they very much do. However, it's not quite that simple, because the power structures are diffuse and opaque, and those concentrating on frying large fish might not be those who get to decide on the fate of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
That missile aimed at Riyadh story is just weird and frankly alarming. You wonder if their leadership has control of their armed forces, let alone their judiciary.
You are correct that the EU could be restricted in its imports to the UK (and probably would be). So they have an incentive to come to an arrangement with us. They are however constrained by WTO rules and by MFN clauses in their current agreements. There is also a question of time. If this is not agreed by the end of the transition, the shutters will come down.
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
So basically either we continue with EU agricultural trade as we do now or we have restrictions - the latter meaning a far bigger potential share of the market for our own farmers.
or, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, USA etc. with their cheaper produce take over. Both EU and UK farmers will lose. UK farmers, selfish to the last moment, expect their subsidies to continue.
Now there's a saving.
Nope. That assumes we decide to.open our markets to them. That is a very different decision to our relationship with the EU.
The boost Brexit will give not only to our European competitor financial centres let alone the US and Asian centres is going to have an interesting impact on this study in future years. The biggest boom area in the City at the moment is firms Brexit related hiring in compliance, risk, HR, IT and project management. The Brexit flight of people, HQs, banking assets, fund assets and securities business is going to be interesting to watch.
The gap may close a little but London will still certainly be number 1 in Europe, Zurich its closest competitor is of course not in the EU or EEA now.
Zurich is not the number two financial centre in Europe. While it's strong in private wealth management, it's weak in institutional fund management, corporate finance, investment research, sales & trading. Indeed, I doubt it's top five in any of those sectors.
If you were to rank European financial centres by importance, you'd have London way out in front, followed by Frankfurt, then a gap before Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam all together.
Dublin might get a leg up but Frankfurt is the clear number two.
My guess is that Dublin will become more important from a back office and institutional fund management perspective, but won't get much of the corporate finance, fixed income, or sales & trading business.
Frankfurt will likely become the continental headquarters for most of the big US banks. For firms like BNP, I would expect them to scale back their London operations somewhat, and move people back to Paris.
Corporate Finance will, I suspect, become much more spread out. There'll be more corporate financiers in Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Milan and Frankfurt than there were, and there will be less of one big centre.
London will remain the biggest centre, but financial services work will be more spread out across the continent.
So basically Iran gets to choose our Foreign Secretary? How did we end up here...
If he brings her back in triumph do they get to choose our PM?
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Having a favourable FS in Britain might be sort of handy for them jsut at the minute... Mind you in 1980 they got to choose the US President - so this is pretty small potatoes really.
Very true, and IIRC their assessment of Reagan was such that they decided to release the hostages before he took office. I think that was probably wise...
The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in.
We'll never know whether Reagan colluded with the Iranians to delay the release to ensure Carter lost. Personally I think someone in his team did a deal.
Comments
However, many of these are mutually unintelligible if similar. (Think German and Dutch, or Spanish and Portugeuse).
Of course, children are taught Beijing Mandarin in school, but its usefulness (outside business and official circles) declines the further you get from the Capital.
Taiwan and Singapore teach Mandarin in schools, but the accent is very different.
It helps though that all Chinese languages (including the Southern ones, such as Cantonese and Fujianese), are WRITTEN the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVOIj7mvWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E
It's now effectively a market on Article 50 either being withdrawn or extended. Neither looks very feasible legally or politically, given the definite need in the latter case for 28-member unanimity. And, Lord Kerr notwithstanding, so probably does withdrawal of the notice.
As I said there is no net change at all from SNP to Labour since June in the latest Scottish Westminster poll.
But shall we talk about shoes instead.
Interestingly I have had least success in communicating with fellow immigrants but from non-English speaking countries as they have attuned their ears to the American accents and find mine much more difficult.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-stock-exchanges-by-size/
I remember in the US I once ordered "potato skins" and was presented with 18 halves of potato deep fried, covered in cheese, bacon, etc. They were not skins, they had simply cut nine potatoes in half. Quite large ones as well. Absolutely delicious, that said.
I mean Jeez.
You want to claim that only those things that will adversely affect farming are going to happen whilst ignoring that there is a flip side to every coin.
For reference, according to the NFU in 2014 we exported 16 billion Euros worth of produce to the EU but imported 40 billion Euros worth. In any situation where that trade is interrupted there is massive scope for UK farmers to increase their home market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_creole_hypothesis
First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.
“The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.
http://www.open-britain.co.uk/full_text_of_lord_kerr_s_speech_article_50_the_facts
However, Article 50 doesn't say that the notice is of our 'intention' to withdraw. (We made clear our 'intention' the day after the referendum). It talks of the notice being about our 'decision' to withdraw. That's a big difference.
Different way of looking at most widely as opposed to most commonly spoken languages:
https://blog.esl-languages.com/blog/esl/most-spoken-languages-world/
In the same way they were happy to change the font and chapter order of the the Constitution, rename it the Lisbon Treaty, and pretend it was completely different.
Byyyeeeeee!!!
Meanwhile higher tariffs on EU imports until a FTA is agreed will see more UK consumers buy British.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/setting-stage-war-us-air-force-says-missile-targeting-saudi-capital-was-iranian
The easing of TRQs with third countries still applies however.
(US constitutional law manages to be yet more ridiculous in this respect.)
For a layman's introduction it is covered by Francis Pryor in his book on sub-Roman Britain
https://twitter.com/britcit/status/928960688701231104
Dear James,
As this government gets on with the business of leaving the European Union, I want to make sure that the road ahead is clear. As the EU Withdrawal Bill enters Committee Stage in Parliament next week, we want to put the precise date and time of our exit on the first page.
On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU.
This date and time is being put into law. Which means that from 11pm on 29 March 2019, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. Our laws will once again be made in our country. And the courts that interpret those laws will sit here in Britain.
It also means that the existing body of EU law will become British law. So this provides certainty and clarity for all businesses and families across the country from the very moment we leave the EU.
However people voted in the referendum, I believe that the country now wants all parties to come together and negotiate the best possible Brexit deal for Britain.
And let me be clear. We will not tolerate attempts to use the passage of this Bill as a way of slowing down or blocking our withdrawal from the EU.
The British people were clear. And this government is clear. On 29 March 2019 at 11pm, the United Kingdom will leave the EU.
So read and share my op-ed to let your friends know:
Sincerely,
Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
Theresa May
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
Article 50(2): "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ..."
Which unhelpfully conflates the two different things - but it doesn't really matter because despite what Lord Kerr says, that's not the crucial clause. The crucial one is 50(3):
Article 50(3): "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And the crucial phase is "shall cease to apply". There is no 'unless' there; there is no provision for revoking notification; it is absolute - shall cease to apply. There's nothing to prevent a country from notifying a decision to not withdraw but it would have no effective standing because Article 50(3) would still apply.
The decisive event is the notification, not the intent that might have gone into it.
So the whole question of markets is moot in the short term. What matters is what level of subsidy farmers will get after Brexit. The same level as now and they are better off. Nothing at all and they are much worse off.
Edit: Further, your interpretation is made even stronger by the presence of an 'unless' in relation to extending the period.
If you were to rank European financial centres by importance, you'd have London way out in front, followed by Frankfurt, then a gap before Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam all together.
2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
"Price changes due to Brexit have a positive impact on farm incomes in all sectors under the FTA and WTO default scenario. In case of a UK Trade Liberalisation scenario, the livestock sector will face price declines, and subsequently its income is negatively affected."
The document is here:
https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/61142
It is well worth reading as it seems their overwhelming concern is the level of subsidy rather than any likely damage to trade.
That might be because of the numbers in the table in appendix 1 which show just how much we import as opposed to export from/to the EU in almost every sector. Indeed the only sectors where we have a trade surplus appear to be fish, products of animal origin (which is a specialist area excluding foods) leather and wool.
While there will be an increase in bureaucracy, and it will no doubt have a small negative impact on trade volumes (or a large one if an FTA is not agreed), from a day-to-day perspective for most Northern Irish citizens (or Irish ones), it will have little impact.
How did we end up here...
In all seriousness does Iran not have rather larger fish to fry right now?
Now there's a saving.
Failing to pass the EU Withdrawal Bill might leave a bloody mess, but it won't stop us being out after 2 years as per Article 50, the EU is not bound by what we do or dont get through parliament.
Mind you in 1980 they got to choose the US President - so this is pretty small potatoes really.
Frankfurt will likely become the continental headquarters for most of the big US banks. For firms like BNP, I would expect them to scale back their London operations somewhat, and move people back to Paris.
Corporate Finance will, I suspect, become much more spread out. There'll be more corporate financiers in Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Milan and Frankfurt than there were, and there will be less of one big centre.
London will remain the biggest centre, but financial services work will be more spread out across the continent.
We'll never know whether Reagan colluded with the Iranians to delay the release to ensure Carter lost. Personally I think someone in his team did a deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory