Apparently according to the Sunday Times the idea is the LDs will find their Trudeau and Macron that way, a key strategist who worked for both those liberal leaders is now advising the LDs
Do you really think that the "hard brexit investment fund" would get voted down by the ERGers? Or that the 4 hardcore remainers would bring down the government by voting down a finance bill?
Tbh, big business bungs is in the nature of our party, I don't think it would be anywhere near as controversial as some are making out.
Is this a JRM who sounds ready to embrace a bit of good old 70s socialism?
Helping out our big business allies wouldn't be socialism, I think it would come under the corporatist banner. That's not a new development for the Tory party, though.
Could be a goer. Perhaps we should find other ways of mitigating the effects of Brexit with taxpayers' money. How about giving a government grant to low-skilled European immigrants as an incentive for them to stay? That way our fruit won't be left unpicked or our warehouses unmanned. Theresa should put it in her next manifesto!
Haven't we shown the insulin scare to be a load of bollocks, given we have four plants that produce it?
Mr Rawlins said that we “make no insulin in the UK.” Strictly speaking, that’s not quite true.
There is one company – Wockhardt UK – that produces animal-based insulin at its site in Wrexham. They estimate that their products are used by about 1,500 to 2,000 patients a year.
But that’s less than half of one percent of the 421,000 people who rely on insulin in the UK (according to an estimate from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in 2010).
So where does everyone else get theirs from? We spoke to the UK’s other leading suppliers of insulin – Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Lilly.
Sanofi told us that the company “does not manufacture insulin in the UK. All of our insulins are manufactured in Frankfurt.” Novo Nordisk told us that its insulin is made in Denmark and France. Lilly told us that they don’t make insulin in the UK either.
If you are going to selectively quote Channel 4's factcheck, you might have added:
"But what does the industry say now?
A spokesperson for HDA UK told FactCheck today that: “we are aware of proposals by the government and manufacturers to develop plans for stockpiling medicines of all types as a ‘buffer stock’ in the event of a ‘no deal Brexit’.”
He added: “The UK medicines supply chain has an inbuilt resilience and flexibility, which is now being supported by the plans for a ‘buffer stock’”, which he described as “sensible planning”.
It’s a similar story from the individual suppliers of insulin. Novo Nordisk – which produces its insulin in Denmark and France – told FactCheck that the company is “is in the process of planning for future contingencies however, at present, we do not anticipate stock shortages.”
I had my meeting with my Logistics team yesterday. We will start stockpiling from February onwards - have to clear room in the warehouse first - but only for about 150 article nos. We sell around 5000 article nos but stock about 1700.
I think all kind of distributors are beginning to the do the same thin - small and large.
Solid construction figures this AM following reasonable manufacturing figures yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow's services figures will continue the trend. I'm confident now in predicting 0.5% GDP growth for Q3. The only downside risk is a possible slowdown in Europe(!). Whatever effect Brexit is or isn't having on the current timeline is very difficult to see. I think it will become more prominent in Q4 with investment decisions being put off until after Brexit day since companies will wait until the smoke clears to see when and where to invest.
The government could do a lot to ease business jitters over Brexit by announcing a huge matched investment fund for brexit preparation and have a very loose set of rules as to what counts. It may look like a gigantic bung to big business (because it would be) but it would have the effect of getting big business to commit to the UK for the medium term and making it work in some manner.
Have we had a Q2 GDP prediction yet (I seem to have missed it)
I have it as 0.4%, I think the ONS will say 0.3% and revise upwards after a month or two. Even the Q1 figure will eventually end up at 0.3% and the major slowdown that was reported at the time will end up being a small blip.
My FY prediction is 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% and 0.4-0.6% for a total of 1.6-1.8%, barely any slowdown on last year (or the year before) and pretty much in the middle of the pack internationally.
Also, anyone who seriously believes for just one second the EU is going to allow us to build an offshore tax haven on their doorstep as an act of pettiness is being *inexcusably* silly.
If we want to become a European Singapore we could do so, the EU would be the equivalent of China bit it is unlikely to happen
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
I see we now have to bribe companies to stay after we leave the EU. I thought the post-EU scenario would involve slashing regulations, corporation tax and employment protection to encourage companies to stay - the so-called "Singapore-on-Thames" option.
Or am I forgetting that leaving the EU is meant to benefit all of us not just the wealthy or big business ? Interesting to see one of the most "popular" policies any new Party could follow would be harsh regulation on big business. There's not an anti-business climate here but there is an anti-global big business climate.
On a tangent, the Single Market is of course Thatcherism Triumphant - instead of getting on a bike and looking for work as Norman Tebbit's father did (allegedly), hundreds of thousands have got on coaches, vans, buses, trains and lorries and come to western Europe looking for work.
The main point of leaving the single market is to reduce immigration and it is that pro Brexit Tories are respecting, if they want an anti big business platform voters can vote for Corbyn Labour
Apparently according to the Sunday Times the idea is the LDs will find their Trudeau and Macron that way, a key strategist who worked for both those liberal leaders is now advising the LDs
Gina Miller 6/4 AC Grayling 4/1 Gary Lineker 10/1 Armando Ianucci 12/1 Jo Swinson 25/1 Alastair Campbell 200/1
All joking aside, I think it's actually a pretty reasonable idea for the Lib Dems, given their circumstances. Provided they put some safeguards in place.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
LibDems would be wise to listen to people in Labour who have been left feeling like this, thanks to the idea of opening up the party to a wider group of "supporters":
The 2018 locals were pre Chequers, next May I expect the UKIP total to be more than double this May's total and the Tories to see heavy seat losses to Labour given the seats were last up in 2015 when the Tories won a majority at the general election on the same day
That is no big deal. In May UKIP was defending 126 seats and succeeded in just three of them.
It is a big deal in that it could cost the Tories seats though. In Epping and Buckhurst Hill and Chipping Ongar for example a higher UKIP vote makes it easier for the LDs to win seats.
Solid construction figures this AM following reasonable manufacturing figures yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow's services figures will continue the trend. I'm confident now in predicting 0.5% GDP growth for Q3. The only downside risk is a possible slowdown in Europe(!). Whatever effect Brexit is or isn't having on the current timeline is very difficult to see. I think it will become more prominent in Q4 with investment decisions being put off until after Brexit day since companies will wait until the smoke clears to see when and where to invest.
The government could do a lot to ease business jitters over Brexit by announcing a huge matched investment fund for brexit preparation and have a very loose set of rules as to what counts. It may look like a gigantic bung to big business (because it would be) but it would have the effect of getting big business to commit to the UK for the medium term and making it work in some manner.
Have we had a Q2 GDP prediction yet (I seem to have missed it)
I have it as 0.4%, I think the ONS will say 0.3% and revise upwards after a month or two. Even the Q1 figure will eventually end up at 0.3% and the major slowdown that was reported at the time will end up being a small blip.
My FY prediction is 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% and 0.4-0.6% for a total of 1.6-1.8%, barely any slowdown on last year (or the year before) and pretty much in the middle of the pack internationally.
Not middle of the pack G7-wise.
Ahead of France, Japan, Italy and maybe even Germany, at least if I'm right and we get something around 1.6-1.8% growth for the year. The EU economy is definitely showing signs that it has run out of steam after a small growth spurt, plus the ECB is about to turn off QE which will cause a further slowdown.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
Apparently according to the Sunday Times the idea is the LDs will find their Trudeau and Macron that way, a key strategist who worked for both those liberal leaders is now advising the LDs
Gina Miller 6/4 AC Grayling 4/1 Gary Lineker 10/1 Armando Ianucci 12/1 Jo Swinson 25/1 Alastair Campbell 200/1
It should be remembered UKIP polled 13% in the 2015 locals so we might see Con net gains next May.
That said I do expect the Tories to do poorly next May.
The blue meanies led Labour by 6% back in 2015 and it coincided with the only time in the last 27 years the Tories have won a majority in a general election.
It is fair to say Theresa May is no David Cameron (pbuh)
Cameron lost 5 out of 6 local elections in government, May has won 1 local election in government and drawn the other
All joking aside, I think it's actually a pretty reasonable idea for the Lib Dems, given their circumstances. Provided they put some safeguards in place.
Apparently according to the Sunday Times the idea is the LDs will find their Trudeau and Macron that way, a key strategist who worked for both those liberal leaders is now advising the LDs
Gina Miller 6/4 AC Grayling 4/1 Gary Lineker 10/1 Armando Ianucci 12/1 Jo Swinson 25/1 Alastair Campbell 200/1
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
I would have every sympathy with long-suffering members such as yourself, but isn't it time for drastic measures?
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
It's nice to know that Labour think we matter!
To say JVL are, ummm, not representative of the Jewish community is an understatement. Jackie Walker has a big role in it, which should set alarm bells ringing from the start.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Interesting defence...we have found a Jew who doesn't think Jezza / Labour have a problem with antisemitism.
It is a bit like saying well a small percentage of African Americans voted for Trump, and here is one that says all the rise of white nationalist stuff is nonsense...while we see a load of neo nazi's carrying their tiki torches through the streets and all Trump can say is blame on both sides...
If I were feeling cynical I would wonder if what is spurring on the Liberal Democrat leadership in this, ummm, interesting proposal is not the way Corbyn's campaign enthused the party and strengthened its membership base but the vast sums of money this arrangement raised for the party's empty coffers.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Some of the Sqwarkbox article used as a base for that post is very similar to Jezziah's 'thinking' on here - and just as erroneous.
And some of the comments below it are (ahem) interesting - doubling down, perhaps.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Some of the Sqwarkbox article used as a base for that post is very similar to Jezziah's 'thinking' on here - and just as erroneous.
And some of the comments below it are (ahem) interesting - doubling down, perhaps.
Probably just Jew's posting offensive stuff to get Jezza cult followers in trouble...that's how the conspiracy goes now, right?
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Some of the Sqwarkbox article used as a base for that post is very similar to Jezziah's 'thinking' on here - and just as erroneous.
And some of the comments below it are (ahem) interesting - doubling down, perhaps.
The problem is that the boundary between anti zionism and anti semitism is blurred.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
It's nice to know that Labour think we matter!
Not only matter, but think PB is fertile ground for untapped Corbyista support.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
Chill. The proposal is to be discussed at conference, then go out to a vote of members if approved.
As a fellow Lib Dem, I would vote against.
It may be a way of driving up attention, a bit like when my local playing fields association put "proposed housing development on fields" as the first item on the AGM. There was no serious proposal, but there was the highest AGM attendance ever recorded!
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Some of the Sqwarkbox article used as a base for that post is very similar to Jezziah's 'thinking' on here - and just as erroneous.
And some of the comments below it are (ahem) interesting - doubling down, perhaps.
The problem is that the boundary between anti zionism and anti semitism is blurred.
That is what people who try to defend sexual harassment say....posting stuff like conspiracy theories about shadowy Jew Illuminati running the world or comparing Israel to Nazi run Germany is extremely clear what side of the line they lie on.
I would have every sympathy with long-suffering members such as yourself, but isn't it time for drastic measures?
Thank you for the kind word but there's absolutely no need to panic as yet. Politics is by nature volatile and nothing lasts forever.
The Party needs to ensure when the next opportunity arises it is in a position to take advantage - that means re-building where the organisation was broken in the Coalition years and building up new areas of activity. There are encouraging signs but it look 25+ years to recover from the disaster of 1970 to the breakthrough of 1997 and the Party of course is dependent on the other two parties.
If either (or both) fracture the dynamic will change.
If I were feeling cynical I would wonder if what is spurring on the Liberal Democrat leadership in this, ummm, interesting proposal is not the way Corbyn's campaign enthused the party and strengthened its membership base but the vast sums of money this arrangement raised for the party's empty coffers.
Oh, yeh, that was worth it. They get millions of cash, but in exchange the party is totally hijacked by its old foes in Militant, Galloway fan club and SWP.
If I were feeling cynical I would wonder if what is spurring on the Liberal Democrat leadership in this, ummm, interesting proposal is not the way Corbyn's campaign enthused the party and strengthened its membership base but the vast sums of money this arrangement raised for the party's empty coffers.
Oh, yeh, that was worth it. They get millions of cash, but in exchange the party is totally hijacked by its old foes in Militant, Galloway fan club and SWP.
A top result.
Corbyn would have won both leadership challenges anyway. That way, they got a hard left leader and in true socialist tradition made a huge profit by exploiting the workers.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Interesting we have a slew of posters who have posted 15,000-20,000 times, who come on here every day and post their regular pro-Brexit anti-Labour drivel, yep, Brexit is wonderful, there will be no food shortages, Corbyn will take your children and eat them, yep, that'll be what happens if we let Labour back in...
Mr. Rata, a nice parallel for Schrödinger's Remainer: simultaneously claiming the EU doesn't have too much power whilst claiming we'll run out of insulin and be unable to have sandwiches if we leave the EU.
Just popping up to mention this in response to you, as you're one of the sensible fellows on either side:
All of the comments that as a Hard Brexit would leave us in such a bad position, it’s “proof” that the EU was snaking its snaky tendrils into every available orifice of power like a snaky snake. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they did do that, but virtually all the examples I’ve seen have been of something completely different: Membership of the EU (primarily, of the SM) causing the removal of obstacles that are present by default, and allowing either activity that wouldn’t be possible, specialisation that wouldn’t be so easy, or movements that would be more costly… and taking all of that away.
Kind of like using a ladder to climb a rock face, removing the ladder suddenly with minimal preparation, and then complaining that we should never have had the ladder in the first place, because just see where it’s left us!
For example, the insulin thing: we know that specialisation allows increased efficiency and capability, which leads to increased output for the same input (things cost less and we get things we otherwise wouldn’t have come up with). Because we could treat almost all of Europe as a single market, everyone in Europe could afford to specialise more. Now, we’re world leaders in pharmaceuticals. But we specialised to get there. Now we have to de-specialise, or come up with a way of importing the insulin (which isn’t beyond the wit of man; it just needs a bunch of hoops jumped through). It’s like LeaveHQ says here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 “What’s wrong with the WTO option?”
On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Interesting we have a slew of posters who have posted 15,000-20,000 times, who come on here every day and post their regular pro-Brexit anti-Labour drivel, yep, Brexit is wonderful, there will be no food shortages, Corbyn will take your children and eat them, yep, that'll be what happens if we let Labour back in...
Co-ordinated much?
Oi! I resent that remark. I've posted on here 20,000 times and have rarely, if ever, posted pro-Brexit material! I've posted plenty of drivel, though.
.... On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
Kind of like using a ladder to climb a rock face, removing the ladder suddenly with minimal preparation, and then complaining that we should never have had the ladder in the first place, because just see where it’s left us!
I like that analogy.
The EU "red tape" that Brexiteers hate so much is in fact the scaffolding that supports most of our businesses.
Having leapt off, we are about to find out whether we can in fact fly, or not.
.... On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Thank you for taking the time to write that. Admirably clear.
Ha ! That put the mockers on them, good and proper.
Excellent work. I can see see them scoring 700 by tea, though. Nailed on, I'd have thought.
Damn I'm good.
Where the hell has Sam Curran been all morning while that tenth-rate has-been Broad whored himself to the Indian batsman?
(Come on Root, get him back on quick before it wears off!)
If only you'd said Anderson...
The useless, luckless has been.
I think my finest ever effort was in 2015. On this very forum at 10.45am I said that Alistair Cook had taken leave of his senses to bowl first in an Ashes match.
.... On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Ha ! That put the mockers on them, good and proper.
Excellent work. I can see see them scoring 700 by tea, though. Nailed on, I'd have thought.
Damn I'm good.
Where the hell has Sam Curran been all morning while that tenth-rate has-been Broad whored himself to the Indian batsman?
(Come on Root, get him back on quick before it wears off!)
If only you'd said Anderson...
The useless, luckless has been.
I think my finest ever effort was in 2015. On this very forum at 10.45am I said that Alistair Cook had taken leave of his senses to bowl first in an Ashes match.
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Because sand in the gears isn't the only problem an economy can face. Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
.... On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
An erudite explanation of what leaving the Single Market means. We can reinvent our own regulatory systems and checks, but at a certain cost, both short term and inbuilt inefficiency later. Breaking up free trade with our largest partner, and via it to multiple other partners, was always going to be like this.
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Because sand in the gears isn't the only problem an economy can face. Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
German unemployment is just 3.5% compared to over 20% in Greece, 16% in Spain and 10% in Italy and Germany also has far higher GDP per capita than southern Europe and a surplus while southern Europe has big deficits.
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM. When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Because sand in the gears isn't the only problem an economy can face. Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
Would it not have helped us in the same way as it helped Germany? Artificially low currency boosting service exports?
"In May 2018, he spent three days on Twitter arguing David Leask, chief reporter of The Herald, was also chief reporter of the Sunday Herald. Despite being told this was not the case by Leask, and the Sunday Herald, he maintained he was right because of out-of-date information on Herald parent company Newsquest’s website."
The Single Market means that widgets, insulin, apples, jam, whatever from anywhere in the SM meets the rules and they recognise that the national body of wherever they’re from has already proven this, so can move freely and easily around. Taking that sand out of the gears for anything inside the SM.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Because sand in the gears isn't the only problem an economy can face. Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
German unemployment is just 4% compared to over 20% in Greece, 16% in Spain and 10% in Italy and Germany also has far higher GDP per capita than southern Europe and lower deficits.
The main beneficiary from the Euro was Germany
It depends what position you are in. German workers had their wages held down artificially while Greeks holding solid Euro assets did well compared to shrinking Drachma assets. Which probably explains why support for the Euro in Greece remains strong.
mies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Because sand in the gears isn't the only problem an economy can face. Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
Would it not have helped us in the same way as it helped Germany? Artificially low currency boosting service exports?
It's certainly possible - but it would probably have exacerbated the Brown Boom before the GFC crash, due to the interest rates being wrong for us. Property prices might also have been even worse (again, due to wrong interest rates).
The crash after the GFC would therefore have been even harder than it was. Recovery from it would have been delayed, and borrowing costs could have been higher (as we wouldn't have had our own lender-of-last-resort capability). All of which would lead to even worse austerity.
Of course, I'm not remotely an expert in this field. Someone like @rcs1000 would be far better at telling whether or not I'm completely off the plot on my view of what the Euro might have meant to us.
Solid construction figures this AM following reasonable manufacturing figures yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow's services figures will continue the trend. I'm confident now in predicting 0.5% GDP growth for Q3. The only downside risk is a possible slowdown in Europe(!). Whatever effect Brexit is or isn't having on the current timeline is very difficult to see. I think it will become more prominent in Q4 with investment decisions being put off until after Brexit day since companies will wait until the smoke clears to see when and where to invest.
The government could do a lot to ease business jitters over Brexit by announcing a huge matched investment fund for brexit preparation and have a very loose set of rules as to what counts. It may look like a gigantic bung to big business (because it would be) but it would have the effect of getting big business to commit to the UK for the medium term and making it work in some manner.
Have we had a Q2 GDP prediction yet (I seem to have missed it)
I have it as 0.4%, I think the ONS will say 0.3% and revise upwards after a month or two. Even the Q1 figure will eventually end up at 0.3% and the major slowdown that was reported at the time will end up being a small blip.
My FY prediction is 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% and 0.4-0.6% for a total of 1.6-1.8%, barely any slowdown on last year (or the year before) and pretty much in the middle of the pack internationally.
As I said, the major downside risk is a slowdown or recession in Europe, what looked like a Q1 blip has spilled over fairly badly into Q2 and the EU economy is much more susceptible to a trade related slowdown than the UK.
What is certainly good is the rebalancing of the economy into something more sustainable:
' Looking at how the expenditure components of gross domestic product (GDP) have evolved since the referendum, there has been some evidence of a rotation in demand in response to the depreciation in sterling and pickup in global demand. Figure 1.6 shows a notable shift away from private consumption and towards net trade and business investment in 2017. '
Interesting that we have had a slew of posters in recent days with single digit posts to their name, all intent on trying to persuade us that Corbyn/Labour are not antisemitic, no sirree, not a bit of it.....
Co-ordinated much?
Interesting we have a slew of posters who have posted 15,000-20,000 times, who come on here every day and post their regular pro-Brexit anti-Labour drivel, yep, Brexit is wonderful, there will be no food shortages, Corbyn will take your children and eat them, yep, that'll be what happens if we let Labour back in...
.... And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue. (2/2)
If it is so good being in the EU why have Greece, Spain, Portugal etc not taken advantage of it and in fact have had large parts of their economies ruined? Youth unemployment in Spain is still 33.8%. Why has being in the EU not helped them?
Greece's problems had nothing to do with the single market, but occurred because their government spent profusely while many of its citizens treated tax as optional - funding one of the most unsustainable completely consumer booms in history and government balance sheet that was basically crooked - problems that have been magnified by endemic corruption and useless populists like Syriza.
The EU arguably bears some responsibility for failing in a duty of oversight, or of a lack of generosity and ambition in its bailouts. But, even if they get angry at it, Greeks don't blame the EU because they know the causes are closer to home.
Spain's youth unemployment problem is a legacy of a property boom that expanded an economy that was fairly backward due to Franco, in a way that wasn't healthy. The education system is a mess and pretty rigid labour laws.
It provides an opportunity. It doesn't protect bad governments from screwing it up.
For the first time in my working life, interest rates are above 0.5%.
Breaks open 4 Yorkshiremen sketch:
You were lucky, I was paying 12% to the bloodsuckers on my first mortgage.
Yes, but the capital element of your mortgage was vastly lower in real terms.
The capital element was also a much smaller element of the repayments.
Despite my house being 3 times earnings as a junior doctor, interest rates meant that it was about 40% of my take home earnings. If mortgage interest rates had been 6% then the same income would have allowed me a house at 6 times earnings.
First time buyers tend to spend up to their affordability limit, usually around 40% of income, on housing. If interest rates are low, prices mushroom, if interest rates drop then they get negative equity. I remember negative equity from the Nineties, and not fondly. A friend of mine got stuckvwith an unsellable flat for 2 years, before selling at a significant capital loss in '93. It put him into rental for years.
Corbyn's support for Iraqi resistance killing British troops is a far more disgraceful position than his unsurprising willingness to talk to Israel hating Jews.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
I think it sounds like a splendid idea. The effect in the Labour Party was to create a much larger membership than would otherwise have been the case. I think this is good for our country. More members=more talent. So we can look forward to better politicians in the future. If the Lib Dems get the same effect then that gives us voters better choices. It's all good. I think the Tories should do it too.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
I think it sounds like a splendid idea. The effect in the Labour Party was to create a much larger membership than would otherwise have been the case. I think this is good for our country. More members=more talent. So we can look forward to better politicians in the future. If the Lib Dems get the same effect then that gives us voters better choices. It's all good. I think the Tories should do it too.
Far be it for me, an Internet rando, to disagree with the esteemed political editor of the esteemed New Statesman, but I think EEA could get a majority if delivered by a Leaver such as Gove or (ha ha) Javid rather than May.
My guess is that the parties would divide as:
- Conservative whipped for (includes non-ERG Leavers) - Conservative Soubryites for - Conservative ERG against - Labour whipped against - Labour Umunnaites for - Labour Field/Hoey difficult to call - SNP/PC abstain - LibDem/Green abstain, possibly for
It would be close, but that could deliver a majority.
@MarqueeMark - Makes me feel slightly better about getting a fix for a couple of years rather than variable, will have to see how the ground lays for March 2020 odd when I come to remortgage ^^;
Far be it for me, an Internet rando, to disagree with the esteemed political editor of the esteemed New Statesman, but I think EEA could get a majority if delivered by a Leaver such as Gove or (ha ha) Javid rather than May.
My guess is that the parties would divide as:
- Conservative whipped for (includes non-ERG Leavers) - Conservative Soubryites for - Conservative ERG against - Labour whipped against - Labour Umunnaites for - Labour Field/Hoey difficult to call - SNP/PC abstain - LibDem/Green abstain, possibly for
It would be close, but that could deliver a majority.
Why should SNP or PC abstain ? EEA means the single market.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
I think it sounds like a splendid idea. The effect in the Labour Party was to create a much larger membership than would otherwise have been the case. I think this is good for our country. More members=more talent. So we can look forward to better politicians in the future. If the Lib Dems get the same effect then that gives us voters better choices. It's all good. I think the Tories should do it too.
IF this is true, they will lose at one member - me.
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
I think it sounds like a splendid idea. The effect in the Labour Party was to create a much larger membership than would otherwise have been the case. I think this is good for our country. More members=more talent. So we can look forward to better politicians in the future. If the Lib Dems get the same effect then that gives us voters better choices. It's all good. I think the Tories should do it too.
Yup. I would vote for Bill Cash.
Have you stopped taking the tablets your Doctor prescribed>?
EEA can't be offered by May. In order for her party (and maybe Parliament) to even consider it, it would need to offered by a sensible leaver untainted by the chequers fiasco.
Comments
Obvious declarations to be made:
1. I am not a member of another political party
2. I do not live in Russia
3.
4
5.
Step forward Alistair Carmichael.
You were lucky, I was paying 12% to the bloodsuckers on my first mortgage.
4. I will take all points on my driving licence
5. I will not blame any sex scandals on a 'mid-life-crisis'
I dislike intensely the "arts" segment at 7.40-ish which comes in the middle of all the news and just shouldn't be there.
Other than that it is still the best news prog out there. But 800k listeners can't be ignored that said.
I think all kind of distributors are beginning to the do the same thin - small and large.
Tommy Robinson could be LibDem leader by March.
Co-ordinated much?
AC Grayling 4/1
Gary Lineker 10/1
Armando Ianucci 12/1
Jo Swinson 25/1
Alastair Campbell 200/1
Not looking promising.
https://twitter.com/schooltruth/status/1024928706572247040
Anyone with even an iota of political nous will know such schemes are cynically hijacked by your opponents to ensure the leader finally chosen is the one least endearing to the general public. If Gina Miller wants to join the Party, fine, she would be most welcome. If she wants to stand as a LD candidate in an election, fine, she would have my support but I couldn't accept her as Party leader because she's "known".
We must as well have the couple from Love Island be co-leaders if that's the route we are going down.
It is a bit like saying well a small percentage of African Americans voted for Trump, and here is one that says all the rise of white nationalist stuff is nonsense...while we see a load of neo nazi's carrying their tiki torches through the streets and all Trump can say is blame on both sides...
And some of the comments below it are (ahem) interesting - doubling down, perhaps.
That put the mockers on them, good and proper.
As a fellow Lib Dem, I would vote against.
It may be a way of driving up attention, a bit like when my local playing fields association put "proposed housing development on fields" as the first item on the AGM. There was no serious proposal, but there was the highest AGM attendance ever recorded!
The Party needs to ensure when the next opportunity arises it is in a position to take advantage - that means re-building where the organisation was broken in the Coalition years and building up new areas of activity. There are encouraging signs but it look 25+ years to recover from the disaster of 1970 to the breakthrough of 1997 and the Party of course is dependent on the other two parties.
If either (or both) fracture the dynamic will change.
A top result.
Kohli will still make big, big runs....
Co-ordinated much?
(Come on Root, get him back on quick before it wears off!)
All of the comments that as a Hard Brexit would leave us in such a bad position, it’s “proof” that the EU was snaking its snaky tendrils into every available orifice of power like a snaky snake. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they did do that, but virtually all the examples I’ve seen have been of something completely different: Membership of the EU (primarily, of the SM) causing the removal of obstacles that are present by default, and allowing either activity that wouldn’t be possible, specialisation that wouldn’t be so easy, or movements that would be more costly… and taking all of that away.
Kind of like using a ladder to climb a rock face, removing the ladder suddenly with minimal preparation, and then complaining that we should never have had the ladder in the first place, because just see where it’s left us!
For example, the insulin thing: we know that specialisation allows increased efficiency and capability, which leads to increased output for the same input (things cost less and we get things we otherwise wouldn’t have come up with). Because we could treat almost all of Europe as a single market, everyone in Europe could afford to specialise more. Now, we’re world leaders in pharmaceuticals. But we specialised to get there. Now we have to de-specialise, or come up with a way of importing the insulin (which isn’t beyond the wit of man; it just needs a bunch of hoops jumped through).
It’s like LeaveHQ says here: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 “What’s wrong with the WTO option?”
On default rules, it’s not the customs tariffs that are the problem in getting things in and out, but regulatory conformity, and evidence of such. And this is really boring stuff – but it’s what’s behind all of this. You have to prove your widgets, insulin, apples, jam, tractors, and so on all comply with the regulatory framework of the importing country. And regulatory frameworks turn out to be exceedingly boring and incredibly important. And compliance, and proof of compliance, are the sand in the gears of movement of stuff between countries.
(1/2)
When the sand’s been taken out of the gears, the machinery of our economies is capable of running a lot better and faster and longer (insert analogy of choice). What we’re coming up against as obstacles are what happens when you suddenly pour sand into those gears after years – decades – of not having it. It could be argued that removing the sand in the first place was a mistake, even a conspiracy to get us dependent on not having sand there. We didn’t need lengthy checks on our lorries, so we took advantage of the benefits that gave us. We didn’t need loads of expensive and bureaucratically painful permits for our hauliers to go around Europe, so they expanded their businesses into Europe. We didn’t need to produce absolutely everything pharmaceutically ourselves, so we were able to specialise. We didn’t need to independently and laboriously agree aircraft servicing standards and flight slots with every separate country as we were part of the Open Skies Agreement, so we put our efforts elsewhere. We expanded our trade hugely – and not just with the EU, with the US, China, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and so on – thanks to Mutual Recognition Agreements between the EU and these countries, removing some of the sand in the gears with them as well, and all that will be gone.
We got all these by removal of barriers, many of which were inherently linked to being in a Single Market. It’s kind of the opposite of seizing power – it’s giving freedom to increase prosperity, and it’s the reversal of that which is the issue.
(2/2)
[Sunil suddenly clutches his head, screaming, as his Tebbit Chip kicks in! Before a more servile expression crosses his face]
Come on, England! Give the caste-botherers hell!
The useless, luckless has been.
The EU "red tape" that Brexiteers hate so much is in fact the scaffolding that supports most of our businesses.
Having leapt off, we are about to find out whether we can in fact fly, or not.
Thank you for taking the time to write that. Admirably clear.
This Ashes match...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11371/scorecard/743969/england-vs-australia-4th-investec-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2015/
Have a good afternoon.
Removal of obstacles can be a benefit. It doesn't have to be.
Personally, I view membership of the Euro as being a significant negative, and I'm bloody glad we never joined. Looking back, the best decision Gordon Brown ever made (and I'm really not a fan of his) was in digging his heels in about joining the Euro.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45046265
The main beneficiary from the Euro was Germany
Not bonkers...
The crash after the GFC would therefore have been even harder than it was. Recovery from it would have been delayed, and borrowing costs could have been higher (as we wouldn't have had our own lender-of-last-resort capability). All of which would lead to even worse austerity.
Of course, I'm not remotely an expert in this field. Someone like @rcs1000 would be far better at telling whether or not I'm completely off the plot on my view of what the Euro might have meant to us.
' Looking at how the expenditure components of gross domestic product (GDP) have evolved since the referendum, there has been some evidence of a rotation in demand in response to the depreciation in sterling and pickup in global demand. Figure 1.6 shows a notable shift away from private consumption and towards net trade and business investment in 2017. '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/compendium/unitedkingdomnationalaccountsthebluebook/2018/nationalaccountsataglance#how-has-spending-in-the-uk-economy-changed-since-the-referendum
Although I'm sure most people would prefer more debt fuelled wealth consumption.
The EU arguably bears some responsibility for failing in a duty of oversight, or of a lack of generosity and ambition in its bailouts. But, even if they get angry at it, Greeks don't blame the EU because they know the causes are closer to home.
Spain's youth unemployment problem is a legacy of a property boom that expanded an economy that was fairly backward due to Franco, in a way that wasn't healthy. The education system is a mess and pretty rigid labour laws.
It provides an opportunity. It doesn't protect bad governments from screwing it up.
Despite my house being 3 times earnings as a junior doctor, interest rates meant that it was about 40% of my take home earnings. If mortgage interest rates had been 6% then the same income would have allowed me a house at 6 times earnings.
First time buyers tend to spend up to their affordability limit, usually around 40% of income, on housing. If interest rates are low, prices mushroom, if interest rates drop then they get negative equity. I remember negative equity from the Nineties, and not fondly. A friend of mine got stuckvwith an unsellable flat for 2 years, before selling at a significant capital loss in '93. It put him into rental for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X13N-Bx17Oc
Also more lunatics with dodgy pasts. Lots more.
Far be it for me, an Internet rando, to disagree with the esteemed political editor of the esteemed New Statesman, but I think EEA could get a majority if delivered by a Leaver such as Gove or (ha ha) Javid rather than May.
My guess is that the parties would divide as:
- Conservative whipped for (includes non-ERG Leavers)
- Conservative Soubryites for
- Conservative ERG against
- Labour whipped against
- Labour Umunnaites for
- Labour Field/Hoey difficult to call
- SNP/PC abstain
- LibDem/Green abstain, possibly for
It would be close, but that could deliver a majority.
Have you stopped taking the tablets your Doctor prescribed>?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…