Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests.
Brexit only really makes sense if the EU ceases to exist. That's why it means our interests will tend to align with Russia's for as long as we are pursuing it.
No it doesn't. After all we did not join the original EEC (the EU's predecessor) of Italy, Germany, France and the Benelux nations until almost 20 years after it was founded
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests.
Brexit only really makes sense if the EU ceases to exist. That's why it means our interests will tend to align with Russia's for as long as we are pursuing it.
That is a fair point from an economic perspective.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.
Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.
Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA
When do you predict the UK will sign an FTA with the US?
Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
That's always been China's trump card over the US.
It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.
If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.
The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
It's almost the point of tariffs - to make certain things more expensive. The idea being that your local production is either more expensive or produces inferior quality, so, given a free choice, consumers opt for the non-local production (being either cheaper for the same quality, or the same price for better quality).
If you artificially increase the prices of the non-local production (impose tariffs on it), then consumers have to pay that extra for the local production or pay even more for the non-local production. It does mean that the consumers effectively take an income cut and that's funnelled to the local producers. It also reduces overall economic activity to some degree (the whatever-it-is getting more expensive means less of it is used) and hurts economic activity in the overseas producers as well.
But the very specific group of the local producers of that thing do better (at the cost of everyone else).
Correct. But Foxy's (non) point about inflation is wrong. Tariffs affect relative prices. For inflation you have to look elsewhere.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests.
Brexit only really makes sense if the EU ceases to exist. That's why it means our interests will tend to align with Russia's for as long as we are pursuing it.
No it doesn't. After all we did not join the original EEC (the EU's predecessor) of Italy, Germany, France and the Benelux nations until almost 20 years after it was founded
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
You have proven before that when any leaver, hard or soft, does acknowledge what you say you want them to acknowledge re downsides (of which you are right there certainly are some, that's why it was a difficult balance for plenty to grapple with), that you say it is not enough. So I don't believe you.
I think you are right: the bar is set too high anyway and will be raised as appropriate. The Remoaner fantasy is to be sitting in 80 years time and saying to the last known Leaver "I am sorry, Mr Manson, but this parole board still does not consider that you have shown genuine remorse and insight into the consequences of your vote."
Mr. Sandpit, quite. I don't get it. I don't bet on the spreads but was looking to get into it, yet they've removed an interesting market and put up a bloody tedious one that's going to have far less movement.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.
Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.
Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA
When do you predict the UK will sign an FTA with the US?
Yes, like Putin Trump backed Brexit. Funny that.
At some point in Trump's yes.if he is re elected.
Putin never offered us a FTA unlike Trump
No deal is better than a bad deal, as someone once said.
The only trade agreement the US will sign with the UK is one that puts it in a much better position than it is now while not exposing US companies to greater competition at home. America First Trump would not do any other kind of deal and no other kind of deal would get through Congress. What’s more, if the Irish border issue is seen to damage Ireland’s interests, the Irish American lobby will ensure no deal of any kind gets through Congress.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
McDonnell has clearly understood that the Corbyn approach to foreign policy is a serious danger to Labour. He is noticeably more robust in his criticisms of Russia, for instance. Beyond Ireland, foreign policy is of little interest to McDonnell, so he can afford to be entirely pragmatic, Blairite even. For Corbyn it is a primary concern. Keep an eye on this one.
Yes indeed, there’s definitely signs of a disagreement between them over the Russian affair. McD knows how bad it looks to be even supporting by omission an assassination with chemical weapons on British soil
Morning all,
Not just about McD and Jezza though. Don't forget Seamus Milne.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
For the uninitiated, what does Treasury strike mean in this instance?
China (and or others) stop buying US Treasury bills - driving up the cost of financing US debt - increasing cost of borrowing for US government, businesses and home owners.....
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
The US launching an IP trade war on China is a bold move at a time when it is attacking its allies with higher steel tariffs. The Chinese would be far more likely to concede ground if there were concerted action from a variety of countries, but will that be forthcoming? I doubt it.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
We might make the semi-finals against that lot
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
McDonnell has clearly understood that the Corbyn approach to foreign policy is a serious danger to Labour. He is noticeably more robust in his criticisms of Russia, for instance. Beyond Ireland, foreign policy is of little interest to McDonnell, so he can afford to be entirely pragmatic, Blairite even. For Corbyn it is a primary concern. Keep an eye on this one.
Yes indeed, there’s definitely signs of a disagreement between them over the Russian affair. McD knows how bad it looks to be even supporting by omission an assassination with chemical weapons on British soil
Morning all,
Not just about McD and Jezza though. Don't forget Seamus Milne.
McDonnell has clearly understood that the Corbyn approach to foreign policy is a serious danger to Labour. He is noticeably more robust in his criticisms of Russia, for instance. Beyond Ireland, foreign policy is of little interest to McDonnell, so he can afford to be entirely pragmatic, Blairite even. For Corbyn it is a primary concern. Keep an eye on this one.
And yet, when challenged on the Today programme about Corbyn's tone in his response to May, McDonnell's view was that Corbyn had got it 'exactly right'.
How much is that down to us no longer buying Germany's killer cars?
Whatever the reason, the UK is no longer as important a market for Germany as it was previously. Others are taking our place.
What do you mean "whatever the reason"? Mass cheating on emissions tests is a bloody good reason to avoid buying German cars. They ripped us off, and those excess emissions will ultimately kill more people. Trade's falling because the German product is a bit crap.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.
Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.
Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA
When do you predict the UK will sign an FTA with the US?
Yes, like Putin Trump backed Brexit. Funny that.
At some point in Trump's yes.if he is re elected.
Putin never offered us a FTA unlike Trump
No deal is better than a bad deal, as someone once said.
The only trade agreement the US will sign with the UK is one that puts it in a much better position than it is now while not exposing US companies to greater competition at home. America First Trump would not do any other kind of deal and no other kind of deal would get through Congress. What’s more, if the Irish border issue is seen to damage Ireland’s interests, the Irish American lobby will ensure no deal of any kind gets through Congress.
Yet he will still offer us a deal.
At the end of the day though Leave won to reduce immigration and regain sovereignty, most Leave voters like Trump voters could not care less what the future relationship with the rest of the world would be
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.
Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.
Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA
When do you predict the UK will sign an FTA with the US?
Yes, like Putin Trump backed Brexit. Funny that.
At some point in Trump's yes.if he is re elected.
Putin never offered us a FTA unlike Trump
No deal is better than a bad deal, as someone once said.
The only trade agreement the US will sign with the UK is one that puts it in a much better position than it is now while not exposing US companies to greater competition at home. America First Trump would not do any other kind of deal and no other kind of deal would get through Congress. What’s more, if the Irish border issue is seen to damage Ireland’s interests, the Irish American lobby will ensure no deal of any kind gets through Congress.
I am saving this post because of how bonkers it is. Even an imbalanced deal would see both sides have greater access to each other's markets, so your "no competition" point is completely bogus. And the US congress, in aggregate, has never voted against a trade deal put before it.
Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
That's always been China's trump card over the US.
It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.
If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.
The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
It's almost the point of tariffs - to make certain things more expensive. The idea being that your local production is either more expensive or produces inferior quality, so, given a free choice, consumers opt for the non-local production (being either cheaper for the same quality, or the same price for better quality).
If you artificially increase the prices of the non-local production (impose tariffs on it), then consumers have to pay that extra for the local production or pay even more for the non-local production. It does mean that the consumers effectively take an income cut and that's funnelled to the local producers. It also reduces overall economic activity to some degree (the whatever-it-is getting more expensive means less of it is used) and hurts economic activity in the overseas producers as well.
But the very specific group of the local producers of that thing do better (at the cost of everyone else).
Correct. But Foxy's (non) point about inflation is wrong. Tariffs affect relative prices. For inflation you have to look elsewhere.
I am not saying tariffs are a major cause of inflation, but they do put up prices of imports, and also reduce competition in pricing for domestic goods. Surely this pushes inflation in only one direction, albeit modestly.
Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.
They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests.
Brexit only really makes sense if the EU ceases to exist. That's why it means our interests will tend to align with Russia's for as long as we are pursuing it.
No it doesn't. After all we did not join the original EEC (the EU's predecessor) of Italy, Germany, France and the Benelux nations until almost 20 years after it was founded
We applied to join the EEC in 1961.
Which France vetoed and we did not fully join until 1973.
Even had we joined in 1961 the EEC was founded in 1957 so we would still not have been one of the original members.
Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?
How much is that down to us no longer buying Germany's killer cars?
Whatever the reason, the UK is no longer as important a market for Germany as it was previously. Others are taking our place.
What do you mean "whatever the reason"? Mass cheating on emissions tests is a bloody good reason to avoid buying German cars. They ripped us off, and those excess emissions will ultimately kill more people. Trade's falling because the German product is a bit crap.
That says the French gave technical assistance to the UK and Mitterand put an arms embargo on Argentina but two Aerospatiale employees (one of whom may or may not have been DGSE) went off the reservation so I don't know what your point was.
France aided the Britain immensely on Op. Corporate. One of my Shar instructors was a Falklands veteran and he recalled how the AdA organised DACT with Mirage III at a day's notice. This was in addition to getting all of the tech specs for the AM38/39 and the DGSE disrupting the Peruvian Exocet buy.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. I don't get it. I don't bet on the spreads but was looking to get into it, yet they've removed an interesting market and put up a bloody tedious one that's going to have far less movement.
Morning, Mr.D. Interesting that Mercedes' tyre selections (for Australia) appear more aggressive than those of Ferrari - who last season were clearly happier with the softer compounds... Significant ?
Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?
That says the French gave technical assistance to the UK and Mitterand put an arms embargo on Argentina but two Aerospatiale employees (one of whom may or may not have been DGSE) went off the reservation so I don't know what your point was.
France aided the Britain immensely on Op. Corporate. One of my Shar instructors was a Falklands veteran and he recalled how the AdA organised DACT with Mirage III at a day's notice. This was in addition to getting all of the tech specs for the AM38/39 and the DGSE disrupting the Peruvian Exocet buy.
Interesting, thank you.
It reminds me of that line in Yes Prime Minister when the French President says something like "You must understand that the French President never knows what French Security is doing."
Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?
Whether or not the Russians asssassinated this guy (on balance of probabilities it certainly seems likely at the least) - clamping down on tax dodging oligarchs is a good idea...
Mr. B, hard to say, to be honest. I tend not to pay too much attention to the tyre selections. They may simply want more opportunity to get to grips with them.
Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
That's always been China's trump card over the US.
It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.
If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.
The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
It's almost the point of tariffs - to make certain things more expensive. The idea being that your local production is either more expensive or produces inferior quality, so, given a free choice, consumers opt for the non-local production (being either cheaper for the same quality, or the same price for better quality).
If you artificially increase the prices of the non-local production (impose tariffs on it), then consumers have to pay that extra for the local production or pay even more for the non-local production. It does mean that the consumers effectively take an income cut and that's funnelled to the local producers. It also reduces overall economic activity to some degree (the whatever-it-is getting more expensive means less of it is used) and hurts economic activity in the overseas producers as well.
But the very specific group of the local producers of that thing do better (at the cost of everyone else).
Correct. But Foxy's (non) point about inflation is wrong. Tariffs affect relative prices. For inflation you have to look elsewhere.
I am not saying tariffs are a major cause of inflation, but they do put up prices of imports, and also reduce competition in pricing for domestic goods. Surely this pushes inflation in only one direction, albeit modestly.
To start off, inflation is a process whereas the imposition of a tariff is a once only step change.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
We might make the semi-finals against that lot
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.
I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
No deal is better than a bad deal, as someone once said.
The only trade agreement the US will sign with the UK is one that puts it in a much better position than it is now while not exposing US companies to greater competition at home. America First Trump would not do any other kind of deal and no other kind of deal would get through Congress. What’s more, if the Irish border issue is seen to damage Ireland’s interests, the Irish American lobby will ensure no deal of any kind gets through Congress.
I am saving this post because of how bonkers it is. Even an imbalanced deal would see both sides have greater access to each other's markets, so your "no competition" point is completely bogus. And the US congress, in aggregate, has never voted against a trade deal put before it.
That sees the trade deal in isolation, but it isn't the case because the FTA imposes conditions that affect trade with third parties. Bilateral trade deals rarely deliver meaningful net benefit, but politicians love them because they can go to foreign capitals and pose in front of an ornate fireplace and twin flags for the signing ceremony. If you are interested take a look at the Australian Productivity Commission's report on the US/AUS FTA (no net benefit) and their explanation about trade diversion. They are clear: multilateral is the way to go, not bilateral.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
Out of interest, what are the holes in the official narrative? The narrative seems to be this a Russian nerve agent that was either used by the Russian state or, less likely, was stolen from the Russian State. What are the holes? Genuine question.
Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?
What's also stupid about this, other than the kneejerk "the Jews did it", is the ridiculing of the Steele dossier. I remember this was done when the Steele dossier first came out, and now 90% has already been confirmed by the FBI.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. I don't get it. I don't bet on the spreads but was looking to get into it, yet they've removed an interesting market and put up a bloody tedious one that's going to have far less movement.
Morning, Mr.D. Interesting that Mercedes' tyre selections (for Australia) appear more aggressive than those of Ferrari - who last season were clearly happier with the softer compounds... Significant ?
I noticed that too. Last year the Mercs aimed for qualifying pace over race pace, and it looks like they might repeat that strategy this year. They also really didn't like the 'soft' tyre last year, so they've taken the minimum allocation of one set of them this year.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
Out of interest, what are the holes in the official narrative? The narrative seems to be this a Russian nerve agent that was either used by the Russian state or, less likely, was stolen from the Russian State. What are the holes? Genuine question.
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
What would you have us do ? Close down Russia Today (big deal), expel large numbers of diplomats (looks politically good for May but I can't imagine Putin losing a wink of sleep over it). There may be some more effective action possible against individuals and their assets in the UK.
As for "affecting dozens of British citizens for decades" - can you please explain that ? There are three people critically ill in hospital and of course everyone hopes they make a full and speedy recovery with one other person apparently slightly affected. I'm not aware of anyone else seeking medical attention at this time unless you are. There is obvious concern in Salisbury and rightly so.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
We might make the semi-finals against that lot
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
Boycotting a sporting event is not an extreme reaction. It is just a bit pathetic. Russia will just shrug. It will hurt us more than them.
I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
A sporting boycott only works if there's a lot of countries involved, Russia will shrug off England not turning up, but won't be shrugging if half the competitors don't turn up.
It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
We might make the semi-finals against that lot
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
I know what you mean. But it would be a big reaction in the sense that us boycotting would be massive news domestically. Weeks of headlines. Whereas this assassination attempt will be soon forgotten by the public at large.
But we're not tackling the criminals behind the diesel emission deaths.
Okay I see what you are saying, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing in the Skripal case because we have let German car manufacturers off the hook. I'd be entirely in favour of more action against them as was done in the US.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
Out of interest, what are the holes in the official narrative? The narrative seems to be this a Russian nerve agent that was either used by the Russian state or, less likely, was stolen from the Russian State. What are the holes? Genuine question.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
Out of interest, what are the holes in the official narrative? The narrative seems to be this a Russian nerve agent that was either used by the Russian state or, less likely, was stolen from the Russian State. What are the holes? Genuine question.
It was a troll post, surely?
You're probably right. Best ignore.
The Russian trolls are coming out of the woodwork on a lot of British forums this week. I wonder why...
Mr. Sandpit, quite. I don't get it. I don't bet on the spreads but was looking to get into it, yet they've removed an interesting market and put up a bloody tedious one that's going to have far less movement.
Morning, Mr.D. Interesting that Mercedes' tyre selections (for Australia) appear more aggressive than those of Ferrari - who last season were clearly happier with the softer compounds... Significant ?
I noticed that too. Last year the Mercs aimed for qualifying pace over race pace, and it looks like they might repeat that strategy this year. They also really didn't like the 'soft' tyre last year, so they've taken the minimum allocation of one set of them this year.
Except this year's soft is near enough last year's supersoft ...
if they've learned how to manage the tyres, could be a dominant season (& there's some speculation that Ferrari have fuel consumption problems).
It boggles my mind people seem to think boycotting a sporting event is an extreme reaction to a foreign state conducting a chemical attack on UK soil, affecting dozens of British citizens for decades. Some of you seen to take an active desire for Britain to be impotent in the face of attack.
What would you have us do ? Close down Russia Today (big deal), expel large numbers of diplomats (looks politically good for May but I can't imagine Putin losing a wink of sleep over it). There may be some more effective action possible against individuals and their assets in the UK.
As for "affecting dozens of British citizens for decades" - can you please explain that ? There are three people critically ill in hospital and of course everyone hopes they make a full and speedy recovery with one other person apparently slightly affected. I'm not aware of anyone else seeking medical attention at this time unless you are. There is obvious concern in Salisbury and rightly so.
The long term dangers of the Novichok agents - according to the guy who helped develop them - are quite severe. It was he who speculated about "affecting dozens of British citizens for decades", though clearly at this point it is just speculation.
Expelling diplomats is an effective technique, as if nothing else it disrupts their intelligence operations for some time.
Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?
Whether or not the Russians asssassinated this guy (on balance of probabilities it certainly seems likely at the least) - clamping down on tax dodging oligarchs is a good idea...
Mr. Sandpit, quite. I don't get it. I don't bet on the spreads but was looking to get into it, yet they've removed an interesting market and put up a bloody tedious one that's going to have far less movement.
Morning, Mr.D. Interesting that Mercedes' tyre selections (for Australia) appear more aggressive than those of Ferrari - who last season were clearly happier with the softer compounds... Significant ?
I noticed that too. Last year the Mercs aimed for qualifying pace over race pace, and it looks like they might repeat that strategy this year. They also really didn't like the 'soft' tyre last year, so they've taken the minimum allocation of one set of them this year.
Except this year's soft is near enough last year's supersoft ...
if they've learned how to manage the tyres, could be a dominant season (& there's some speculation that Ferrari have fuel consumption problems).
If the red cars are using too much fuel, that’s going to be fatal to their chances of winning the championship. If the Mercs have mastered the tyres as well it’s going to be a walkover and Lewis at 1.9ish for the title is free money.
Still no proof offered that this was the Russian government I see. Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either. I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
Out of interest, what are the holes in the official narrative? The narrative seems to be this a Russian nerve agent that was either used by the Russian state or, less likely, was stolen from the Russian State. What are the holes? Genuine question.
It was a troll post, surely?
You're probably right. Best ignore.
Hard to know which of Mr Wisemann and Lord Adonis is a bigger blow to the nominative determinists.
Per CNN "Counting of the election day and absentee votes in PA-18 is now complete, and Democrat Conor Lamb is poised for a stunning upset with a 627-vote lead over Republican Rick Saccone.
There are some remaining votes to be counted – provisional ballots and any military or overseas ballots, which may currently still be in the mail but must be received by the counties by March 20."
Chance of overturn on recount less than 1%? (though not much that you can bet much at 1.02)
Comments
Putin never offered us a FTA unlike Trump
But Foxy's (non) point about inflation is wrong. Tariffs affect relative prices. For inflation you have to look elsewhere.
The only trade agreement the US will sign with the UK is one that puts it in a much better position than it is now while not exposing US companies to greater competition at home. America First Trump would not do any other kind of deal and no other kind of deal would get through Congress. What’s more, if the Irish border issue is seen to damage Ireland’s interests, the Irish American lobby will ensure no deal of any kind gets through Congress.
Strange how close elections can be some times - I presume the GOP will blame the Libertarian for acting as a spoiler if they lose. Not sure it works that way.
I see on matters Russia the bellicose ranting has turned down a notch as the reality of our options becomes a little clearer. There'll be the usual posturing from May but "meaningful action" ? Diplomatic exclusions certainly, cultural restrictions, maybe but nothing to make Putin stop and think in all honesty.
Are we really going to boycott the World Cup and give up appearing again until 2026 ? We can keep the official representation to a bare minimum but we'll go. I saw some halfwit suggest a "substitute World Cup" of "nice" nations we could organise so that would be Canada, Australia NZ, USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.
We might make the semi-finals against that lot
Not just about McD and Jezza though. Don't forget Seamus Milne.
EDIT: Strike that (ha!) RCS's 5:43 post makes it clear to me, thanks.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/973836831124017152
That's very good
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/diesel-emissions-test-scandal-causes-38000-early-deaths-year-study
So why is killing for financial gain deemed to be acceptable but killing for political reasons not ?
At the end of the day though Leave won to reduce immigration and regain sovereignty, most Leave voters like Trump voters could not care less what the future relationship with the rest of the world would be
Even had we joined in 1961 the EEC was founded in 1957 so we would still not have been one of the original members.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/russian-to-judgement/
That says the French gave technical assistance to the UK and Mitterand put an arms embargo on Argentina but two Aerospatiale employees (one of whom may or may not have been DGSE) went off the reservation so I don't know what your point was.
France aided the Britain immensely on Op. Corporate. One of my Shar instructors was a Falklands veteran and he recalled how the AdA organised DACT with Mirage III at a day's notice. This was in addition to getting all of the tech specs for the AM38/39 and the DGSE disrupting the Peruvian Exocet buy.
Interesting that Mercedes' tyre selections (for Australia) appear more aggressive than those of Ferrari - who last season were clearly happier with the softer compounds...
Significant ?
It reminds me of that line in Yes Prime Minister when the French President says something like "You must understand that the French President never knows what French Security is doing."
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, children.
I think the Russians are more worried about a covert cyber attack on the finances of Putin and his close associates. If I were the UK Government, I wouldn't spell out the retribution. I would say - "You will pay. We won't say where or when but you'll know about it" and leave it at that. Let it dangle. Raise our cyber defences and have a good go at a covert cyber attack.
Still had nothing but idiotic objections to the many holes in the official narrative either.
I suppose I shouldn’t to go to a forum full of prematurely senile middle aged mediocrities for anything but infantile flag-waving and craven dismissal of the previous form on these kind of issues when it comes to our corrupt security establishment.
Meanwhile Russia continues to clear the Tory-backed terrorists in East Ghouta and makes a war on Iran increasingly impossible, which are its real crimes.
On a related matter this is an excellent explanation of Rules of Origin and one of the costs of leaving the European Union and its customs union:
http://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-and-rules-origin-why-free-trade-agreements-≠-free-trade
As for "affecting dozens of British citizens for decades" - can you please explain that ? There are three people critically ill in hospital and of course everyone hopes they make a full and speedy recovery with one other person apparently slightly affected. I'm not aware of anyone else seeking medical attention at this time unless you are. There is obvious concern in Salisbury and rightly so.
It was suggested yesterday that Germany might be open to a boycott, and that their version of The Sun would be supportive. As the holder of the trophy that is more meaningful. I think there's a group of nations happy to bash Russia, and a group of nations happy to bash FIFA - it could yet be a perfect storm.
NEW THREAD
if they've learned how to manage the tyres, could be a dominant season (& there's some speculation that Ferrari have fuel consumption problems).
Expelling diplomats is an effective technique, as if nothing else it disrupts their intelligence operations for some time.
"Counting of the election day and absentee votes in PA-18 is now complete, and Democrat Conor Lamb is poised for a stunning upset with a 627-vote lead over Republican Rick Saccone.
There are some remaining votes to be counted – provisional ballots and any military or overseas ballots, which may currently still be in the mail but must be received by the counties by March 20."
Chance of overturn on recount less than 1%? (though not much that you can bet much at 1.02)