On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).
Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
I'm with Krugman. Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
Actually that's a fair point, but for a different reason. The calling out the fire brigade bit would be a mad scramble to get a deal in place. Agree anything and everything the EU asks for. The EU knows this, which is why it completely ignores the No Deal is better than a Bad Deal rhetoric and May, Davies and Raab have never followed through on their threats to call the EU's bluff. No Deal isn't a viable end state, so why go there?
Very good and interesting thread David and thank you
Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.
TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment
She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.
It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers
It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions
The polls this weekend will be interesting
To be honest, I dont think we will see anything much happen this week, just the usual stalemate of trench warfare. Tuesday the 11th will be interesting. I expect that you are right and that the whiff of gunpowder will send the ERG types back gibbrering under their bunks in the duggout.
The good news is the 5 day debate commences on tuesday so we can have a week off before reconvening on tuesday week to see the theatre play out
There was a Survation poll published yesterday on a quite a large sample but, because it was for England Wales only, it has been mainly ignored. The data tables are now available. https://www.survation.com/tablesenglandwales/
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is: Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306 Lab 265 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 PC 3 NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority. Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
The only thing I am uncertain of is whether May really wants to continue after Brexit. It must be stressful even if you are built of reinforced concrete. She looks as though it has taken its toll on her.
"And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"),"
If she has any sense, she'll go then, saying "I have delivered on Brexit" and leave on a high (and probably with a modest polling lead of 5 or so per cent). OK, if Philip has any sense, he'll be telling her that ...
I'm sure she wants to continue. Her work is not yet done. She didn't go into politics to do Brexit, she went into politics to build a vast dystopian surveillance state that knows everything about you except the location of the passport that you sent to the Home Office.
King Cole, the VAT insanity was the EU's attempt to crackdown on Amazon et al. not paying as much tax as they'd like. It ended up clobbering micro-businesses and small traders, driving them onto online marketplaces who had the clout to handle the red tape. Places like Amazon.
Essentially, the EU shifted VAT due from the country of sale to the country of purchase (ie no longer the retailer's territory but the consumer's). This was for automated purchases (ie click a link, get the goods), and managed to shaft people like grannies selling knitting patterns and authors with their own online stores. The VAT, handled by Amazon if you sell through that site, is taken, I believe, from the author's share.
It's an object lesson how bureaucratic idiots with no knowledge of business or technology can have the best of intentions but end up harming those they sought to help and helping those they sought to (via more taxation) harm.
It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.
she's hardly the only one. If everything us up for grabs why are so many opposed on the basis it locks us in to things forever?
Theresa May is very keen to close down options. Many of them don't need closing down but that would reveal we don't get anything in return for our payments, Irish and level playing field commitments, beyond a two year extension of the status quo and a promise to negotiate a future deal in an environment that heavily favours the EU. Sam Gyimah sums up the issue well today.
There was a Survation poll published yesterday on a quite a large sample but, because it was for England Wales only, it has been mainly ignored. The data tables are now available. https://www.survation.com/tablesenglandwales/
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is: Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306 Lab 265 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 PC 3 NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority. Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
The you gov poll was 40/35/10/6 providing a 5% conservative lead and a calculus of conservative 10 seat majority
There was a Survation poll published yesterday on a quite a large sample but, because it was for England Wales only, it has been mainly ignored. The data tables are now available. https://www.survation.com/tablesenglandwales/
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is: Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306 Lab 265 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 PC 3 NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority. Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
Remarkably, we would all be in an even worse mess with that result.
The only thing I am uncertain of is whether May really wants to continue after Brexit. It must be stressful even if you are built of reinforced concrete. She looks as though it has taken its toll on her.
"And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"),"
If she has any sense, she'll go then, saying "I have delivered on Brexit" and leave on a high (and probably with a modest polling lead of 5 or so per cent). OK, if Philip has any sense, he'll be telling her that ...
I'm sure she wants to continue. Her work is not yet done. She didn't go into politics to do Brexit, she went into politics to build a vast dystopian surveillance state that knows everything about you except the location of the passport that you sent to the Home Office.
I am not very convinced.
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed to me. And she has some medical problems.
There is always another politician, from left or right, capable of building our dystopian future. Why should not Theresa leave the job for others?
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed to me. And she has some medical problems.
There is always another politician, from left or right, capable of building our dystopian future. Why should not Theresa leave the job for others?
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed because she's lumbered with Brexit. Anyone lumbered with Brexit would look miserable and unhappy and stressed.
There may be other politicians who dabble in surveillance infrastructure, but how can she be sure that they truly have the dark force of dystopia deep inside them?
On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).
Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
I'm with Krugman. Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
Actually that's a fair point, but for a different reason. The calling out the fire brigade bit would be a mad scramble to get a deal in place. Agree anything and everything the EU asks for. The EU knows this, which is why it completely ignores the No Deal is better than a Bad Deal rhetoric and May, Davies and Raab have never followed through on their threats to call the EU's bluff. No Deal isn't a viable end state, so why go there?
I also don't think its a viable end state, and we shouldn't go there and I still think we won't go there. But if we did, I imagine we would just agree May's deal which is already written up, no one would want to reopen a great big negotiation all over again.
It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.
she's hardly the only one. If everything us up for grabs why are so many opposed on the basis it locks us in to things forever?
Theresa May is very keen to close down options. Many of them don't need closing down but that would reveal we don't get anything in return for our payments, Irish and level playing field commitments, beyond a two year extension of the status quo and a promise to negotiate a future deal in an environment that heavily favours the EU. Sam Gyimah sums up the issue well today.
She has "negotiated" permanent commitments for a temporary 21 month extension to our benefits essentially. On the longer term future we are no further now than we were when we invoked Article 50 and we have less time in the transition than Article 50 gave us.
There was a Survation poll published yesterday on a quite a large sample but, because it was for England Wales only, it has been mainly ignored. The data tables are now available. https://www.survation.com/tablesenglandwales/
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is: Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306 Lab 265 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 PC 3 NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority. Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
The you gov poll was 40/35/10/6 providing a 5% conservative lead and a calculus of conservative 10 seat majority
That's correct. And the larger Survation poll makes the Tories 38 short of an overall majority.
The individual polls have quite a large margin of error so I smooth them out with an Exponential Moving Average with a smoothing constant of 10%.
The results don't bob around as much and the trends are clearer. At the moment there is a small trend to the Tories but they are still some way from an overall majority and risk a Corbyn minority government if a GE was held now (based on the polling).
The only thing I am uncertain of is whether May really wants to continue after Brexit. It must be stressful even if you are built of reinforced concrete. She looks as though it has taken its toll on her.
"And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"),"
If she has any sense, she'll go then, saying "I have delivered on Brexit" and leave on a high (and probably with a modest polling lead of 5 or so per cent). OK, if Philip has any sense, he'll be telling her that ...
I'm sure she wants to continue. Her work is not yet done. She didn't go into politics to do Brexit, she went into politics to build a vast dystopian surveillance state that knows everything about you except the location of the passport that you sent to the Home Office.
King Cole, the VAT insanity was the EU's attempt to crackdown on Amazon et al. not paying as much tax as they'd like. It ended up clobbering micro-businesses and small traders, driving them onto online marketplaces who had the clout to handle the red tape. Places like Amazon.
Essentially, the EU shifted VAT due from the country of sale to the country of purchase (ie no longer the retailer's territory but the consumer's). This was for automated purchases (ie click a link, get the goods), and managed to shaft people like grannies selling knitting patterns and authors with their own online stores. The VAT, handled by Amazon if you sell through that site, is taken, I believe, from the author's share.
It's an object lesson how bureaucratic idiots with no knowledge of business or technology can have the best of intentions but end up harming those they sought to help and helping those they sought to (via more taxation) harm.
Hmm. I see. The object of the change is sensible, and is an example of how we need groups such as the EU to cope with the big on-line multinationals. However, why, I wonder are e-books not exempt or zero rated..... which in my experience results in less complexity..... as printed ones are.
I don't see why VAT should be taken by Amazon from the authors share. I THINK that's illegal. I fail to see why Amazon, as an American company, do not simply do what appears to be normal practice in the US, i.e. goods are $5, but when one buys them one discovers that they are in fact $5 plus 10% sales tax. A small author, like a small plumber etc may well be below the tax threshold and therefore not required to state their purchases.
In a previous life I had a lot to do with VAT, including that on medicines, which were standard rated when sold to the final retailer, but zero rated if 'sold' on prescription. The pharmacist, as final seller, simply reclaimed the tax paid from HMRC.
In my experience VAT had the considerable advantage of making small traders keep accounts, as they had to provide quarterly accounts to the Revenue.
On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).
Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
I'm with Krugman. Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
Actually that's a fair point, but for a different reason. The calling out the fire brigade bit would be a mad scramble to get a deal in place. Agree anything and everything the EU asks for. The EU knows this, which is why it completely ignores the No Deal is better than a Bad Deal rhetoric and May, Davies and Raab have never followed through on their threats to call the EU's bluff. No Deal isn't a viable end state, so why go there?
I also don't think its a viable end state, and we shouldn't go there and I still think we won't go there. But if we did, I imagine we would just agree May's deal which is already written up, no one would want to reopen a great big negotiation all over again.
I think the risk of ending up in No Deal is quite high, if less than evens. But once there we would want to get out quickly. The damage would be severe and partly permanent.
There was a Survation poll published yesterday on a quite a large sample but, because it was for England Wales only, it has been mainly ignored. The data tables are now available. https://www.survation.com/tablesenglandwales/
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is: Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306 Lab 265 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 PC 3 NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority. Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
That sounds like a brilliant government option. Especially if they can contrive to Caroline Lucas into the cabinet.
On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).
Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
Actually that's a fair point, but for a different reason. The calling out the fire brigade bit would be a mad scramble to get a deal in place. Agree anything and everything the EU asks for. The EU knows this, which is why it completely ignores the No Deal is better than a Bad Deal rhetoric and May, Davies and Raab have never followed through on their threats to call the EU's bluff. No Deal isn't a viable end state, so why go there?
I also don't think its a viable end state, and we shouldn't go there and I still think we won't go there. But if we did, I imagine we would just agree May's deal which is already written up, no one would want to reopen a great big negotiation all over again.
I think the risk of ending up in No Deal is quite high, if less than evens. But once there we would want to get out quickly. The damage would be severe and partly permanent.
I think that the border difficulties would be transient. The real risk of No Deal is that it is Brexit Britains Ratners moment, with permanent reputational damage.
GOP have incumbency so they abolish primaries, expecting no other R will run against their incumbent but the D vote will be split among several challengers. Dems respond by uniting around one challenger, except for one guy who volunteers to run as R.
The case raises a lot of questions. [Snipped for length]
Then there is the deportation itself. Britain is not made safer by it, but Ghana is hardly a war zone.
You will appreciate I cannot reveal everything I know about this young man.
Two points: he was not a proprietary trader and should not have been trading anything. He was there to do trades for the bank's clients and should not have been taking any risk at all (or only the minimal risk that obtains for any client trade). He deliberately hid his trades and repeatedly lied to those who did see that something was very wrong but were confused by what was really going on.
There were problems with UBS's controls but the real problem and the reason I wrote what I wrote on my blog is that the big mistake that those in the control functions made was to assume that Adoboli was telling them the truth and thinking it was their fault they couldn't understand. They trusted him. He abused their trust. That is why it took much longer than it should have to catch up with him. It was only when a sharp senior person insisted on getting a proper explanation in person that Adoboli was forced to admit to what he had done.
Most proprietary traders - the good ones - are not gamblers. They understand risk and know when to get out of a losing trade. They do not go for double or quits. The essence of good banking, good trading is - other than trust - understanding how to manage risk. He had no idea because he himself was a gambler and a liar, long before he came to the City. He should never have been employed - and how he (and others like him) came to be is a whole other (and unedifying) story.
The biggest mistake that finance has made in recent years is not understanding that one of their biggest risks are the people they employ. That is why they have been so abysmal at managing their people and why they are now, belatedly, focusing on conduct and character and culture.
But if someone abuses the trust placed in them that is their choice. Adoboli chose to do the wrong thing over and over again and chose not to do the right thing when he had the opportunity to do so. That is down to him not anyone else. And he should take responsibility for his actions not make excuses and justifications, which is what he has done ever since he was caught on 14th September 2011.
I see no good reason why he should be allowed to stay in this country. He knew what the penalty was. And we are better off without people like him spreading his fairy stories about what happened. There are people who are doing something to improve the City's culture. They are undermined - not helped - by people like him.
King Cole, the VAT insanity was the EU's attempt to crackdown on Amazon et al. not paying as much tax as they'd like. It ended up clobbering micro-businesses and small traders, driving them onto online marketplaces who had the clout to handle the red tape. Places like Amazon.
Essentially, the EU shifted VAT due from the country of sale to the country of purchase (ie no longer the retailer's territory but the consumer's). This was for automated purchases (ie click a link, get the goods), and managed to shaft people like grannies selling knitting patterns and authors with their own online stores. The VAT, handled by Amazon if you sell through that site, is taken, I believe, from the author's share.
It's an object lesson how bureaucratic idiots with no knowledge of business or technology can have the best of intentions but end up harming those they sought to help and helping those they sought to (via more taxation) harm.
Hmm. I see. The object of the change is sensible, and is an example of how we need groups such as the EU to cope with the big on-line multinationals. However, why, I wonder are e-books not exempt or zero rated..... which in my experience results in less complexity..... as printed ones are.
I don't see why VAT should be taken by Amazon from the authors share. I THINK that's illegal. I fail to see why Amazon, as an American company, do not simply do what appears to be normal practice in the US, i.e. goods are $5, but when one buys them one discovers that they are in fact $5 plus 10% sales tax. A small author, like a small plumber etc may well be below the tax threshold and therefore not required to state their purchases.
In a previous life I had a lot to do with VAT, including that on medicines, which were standard rated when sold to the final retailer, but zero rated if 'sold' on prescription. The pharmacist, as final seller, simply reclaimed the tax paid from HMRC.
In my experience VAT had the considerable advantage of making small traders keep accounts, as they had to provide quarterly accounts to the Revenue.
E-books are not exempt because the exemption is for printed materials.
And the VAT is taken by Amazon from the authors share because that is the easiest way to do it. Authors generally get a much higher percentage of the digital version of their books compared to the hard copy. So in my case I get 10% of all hard copy sales and 50% of digital sales. Because the costs are far lower on digital it means that the Author can get more money, VAT is paid, but the product price is still lower for the customer. To say the author is paying the VAT is actually incorrect. It is just that without the VAT share the price of the product would be 1/6th lower than it is to the customer.
On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).
Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. .
I'm with Krugman. Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
Actually that's a fair point, but for a different reason. The calling out the fire brigade bit would be a mad scramble to get a deal in place. Agree anything and everything the EU asks for. The EU knows this, which is why it completely ignores the No Deal is better than a Bad Deal rhetoric and May, Davies and Raab have never followed through on their threats to call the EU's bluff. No Deal isn't a viable end state, so why go there?
I also don't think its a viable end state, and we shouldn't go there and I still think we won't go there. But if we did, I imagine we would just agree May's deal which is already written up, no one would want to reopen a great big negotiation all over again.
I think the risk of ending up in No Deal is quite high, if less than evens. But once there we would want to get out quickly. The damage would be severe and partly permanent.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
Can you cite the part of section 25 that relates to S1? I don't see it.
The position re the notification was that a government cannot by executive authority override the effect of an Act of Parliament. In this case, parliament has expressly granted the PM the power to withdraw the UK from the EU, which she has since done. To withdraw that notice - the power to do which is not granted by the Act, and hence must rely on pre-existing executive powers - would run counter to that same de Keyser principle.
Yes, I can. Section 25(1) lists those provisions that come into force on the day the Act is passed (which doesn't include section 1). Then subsections (2) and (3) deal with some Scottish matters of no relevance to our discussion. Then subsection (4) says, "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." So that's the relevant one for section 1, and it's not yet come into force.
You're right that the second point is more arguable. One point in your favour is that neither party in Miller contested that the Article 50 notice was irrevocable. That was convenient for both the Government and Miller, and the two dissenting judgments were obviously troubled by it. But because it wasn't contested, the courts didn't decide the matter.
Overall, I don't think your argument is correct. Importantly, the De Keyser case (and Miller case) don't say Government need Parliamentary approval for any action they may take, only those that have the effect of modifying domestic law passed by Parliament. Essentially, it's a clash between two constitutional principles: (i) Government cannot change laws made by Parliament; and (ii) making and unmaking of Treaties is within the competence of Government.
Withdrawing the Article 50 notice (if allowed within EU law - and, as I say, that's probably the more contentious point) doesn't involve such a clash, in my view. It's within the competence of Government, and doesn't change laws made by Parliament because it doesn't have the effect of changing the 1972 Act or the Notification of Withdrawal Act, or the Withdrawal Act.
No doubt it'd be subject to some kind of legal challenge by someone, and that'd be interesting. But I'd be reasonably confident (say 75/25) that the view outlined above would win the day.
It was horrible and if she hadn't been sick in the DR's surgery and the Doctor hadnt realised immediately it was sepsis (We think as a result of a cut from a rose thorn) she might not be here. as it was it was 999 straight to Worthing Hospital bypassing A and E straight to a ward and IV antibiotics immediately..... NHS was wonderful as was Worthing Hospital.. No wonder its rated outstanding by the CQC
Best wishes to you and your wife for a full and speedy recovery.
King Cole, the VAT insanity was the EU's attempt to crackdown on Amazon et al. not paying as much tax as they'd like. It ended up clobbering micro-businesses and small traders, driving them onto online marketplaces who had the clout to handle the red tape. Places like Amazon.
It's an object lesson how bureaucratic idiots with no knowledge of business or technology can have the best of intentions but end up harming those they sought to help and helping those they sought to (via more taxation) harm.
Hmm. I see. The object of the change is sensible, and is an example of how we need groups such as the EU to cope with the big on-line multinationals. However, why, I wonder are e-books not exempt or zero rated..... which in my experience results in less complexity..... as printed ones are.
I don't see why VAT should be taken by Amazon from the authors share. I THINK that's illegal. I fail to see why Amazon, as an American company, do not simply do what appears to be normal practice in the US, i.e. goods are $5, but when one buys them one discovers that they are in fact $5 plus 10% sales tax. A small author, like a small plumber etc may well be below the tax threshold and therefore not required to state their purchases.
In a previous life I had a lot to do with VAT, including that on medicines, which were standard rated when sold to the final retailer, but zero rated if 'sold' on prescription. The pharmacist, as final seller, simply reclaimed the tax paid from HMRC.
In my experience VAT had the considerable advantage of making small traders keep accounts, as they had to provide quarterly accounts to the Revenue.
E-books are not exempt because the exemption is for printed materials.
And the VAT is taken by Amazon from the authors share because that is the easiest way to do it. Authors generally get a much higher percentage of the digital version of their books compared to the hard copy. So in my case I get 10% of all hard copy sales and 50% of digital sales. Because the costs are far lower on digital it means that the Author can get more money, VAT is paid, but the product price is still lower for the customer. To say the author is paying the VAT is actually incorrect. It is just that without the VAT share the price of the product would be 1/6th lower than it is to the customer.
Thank you. See what you mean about e-books. Could be got round, I suppose. As one who is trying to pluck up courage to put a novella he has written onto the market, I've often been surprised at the difference between on-lin and printed prices, but what you write makes complete sense. And of course without VAT on all sorts of things from toothpaste to motor cars the price to the consumer would be lower if it wasn't for VAT.
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed to me. And she has some medical problems.
There is always another politician, from left or right, capable of building our dystopian future. Why should not Theresa leave the job for others?
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed because she's lumbered with Brexit. Anyone lumbered with Brexit would look miserable and unhappy and stressed.
There may be other politicians who dabble in surveillance infrastructure, but how can she be sure that they truly have the dark force of dystopia deep inside them?
She should not worry.
All politicians have a dark, kinky streak of dystopia deep inside them.
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
Citation needed.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
If May tries to get a General Election it will be interesting to see if she is blocked by Conservative backbenchers voting against it because they would rather unseat her as their leader first.
King Cole, I'm sure the Amazon approach is legal. Given the EU's desire to hit them, action would've been taken if not.
When I say 'the author's share' I mean the rejiggification of money results in the author getting less. So a 2.99 book will have the income split not merely between Amazon and author, but Amazon, author, and the taxman with the Amazon share remaining the same (I think. My understanding is that the Amazon share used to increase the sales tax, which was smaller because of their tax-efficient domestication or suchlike).
And that's without considering the small and micro-businesses driven to online marketplaces like Amazon so the bigger firm handles the bureaucracy the EU pointless and counter-productively introduced.
This is correct, and for the people here who thought the EU side didn't really care about the Irish border and were just using it as leverage: If they didn't care about it, why did they give up so much - full market access, without financial contributions or FoM - to be sure it stayed open?
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
Citation needed.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
So before the deal has even been properly scrutinised by the public it is already the least popular of the three options.
Once all the worst parts are pointed out by both sides it will get even lower no doubt.
The case raises a lot of questions. [Snipped for length]
Then there is the deportation itself. Britain is not made safer by it, but Ghana is hardly a war zone.
You will appreciate I cannot reveal everything I know about this young man.
Most proprietary traders - the good ones - are not gamblers. They understand risk and know when to get out of a losing trade. They do not go for double or quits. The essence of good banking, good trading is - other than trust - understanding how to manage risk. He had no idea because he himself was a gambler and a liar, long before he came to the City. He should never have been employed - and how he (and others like him) came to be is a whole other (and unedifying) story.
The biggest mistake that finance has made in recent years is not understanding that one of their biggest risks are the people they employ. That is why they have been so abysmal at managing their people and why they are now, belatedly, focusing on conduct and character and culture.
But if someone abuses the trust placed in them that is their choice. Adoboli chose to do the wrong thing over and over again and chose not to do the right thing when he had the opportunity to do so. That is down to him not anyone else. And he should take responsibility for his actions not make excuses and justifications, which is what he has done ever since he was caught on 14th September 2011.
I see no good reason why he should be allowed to stay in this country. He knew what the penalty was. And we are better off without people like him spreading his fairy stories about what happened. There are people who are doing something to improve the City's culture. They are undermined - not helped - by people like him.
Quoting from the Barry Walsh link:
"[The] amount of money lost by his fraudulent trading: US$2,500,000,000. If the sums spent by UBS on remediation and dealing with the consequences of this loss were added in, the totals would be truly eye-watering."
Implying that US$2,500,000,000 itself was not eye-watering.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to an American senator who said "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking serious money".
King Cole, I'm sure the Amazon approach is legal. Given the EU's desire to hit them, action would've been taken if not.
When I say 'the author's share' I mean the rejiggification of money results in the author getting less. So a 2.99 book will have the income split not merely between Amazon and author, but Amazon, author, and the taxman with the Amazon share remaining the same (I think. My understanding is that the Amazon share used to increase the sales tax, which was smaller because of their tax-efficient domestication or suchlike).
And that's without considering the small and micro-businesses driven to online marketplaces like Amazon so the bigger firm handles the bureaucracy the EU pointless and counter-productively introduced.
In the UK a 'trader' doesn't have to register for VAT if their turnover is below £85,000. I can't see a minimum in the EU but presumably there is one.
This is correct, and for the people here who thought the EU side didn't really care about the Irish border and were just using it as leverage: If they didn't care about it, why did they give up so much - full market access, without financial contributions or FoM - to be sure it stayed open?
Financial contributions and freedom of movement (plus fish) could yet be negotiated by the EU as part of the Trade Deal or even as pre-conditions to participate in the Trade Deal negotiations.
King Cole, I'm sure the Amazon approach is legal. Given the EU's desire to hit them, action would've been taken if not.
When I say 'the author's share' I mean the rejiggification of money results in the author getting less. So a 2.99 book will have the income split not merely between Amazon and author, but Amazon, author, and the taxman with the Amazon share remaining the same (I think. My understanding is that the Amazon share used to increase the sales tax, which was smaller because of their tax-efficient domestication or suchlike).
And that's without considering the small and micro-businesses driven to online marketplaces like Amazon so the bigger firm handles the bureaucracy the EU pointless and counter-productively introduced.
In the UK a 'trader' doesn't have to register for VAT if their turnover is below £85,000. I can't see a minimum in the EU but presumably there is one.
There is no EU minimum (if there was we would be identical) it varies from nation to nation. We have the highest minimum AFAIK most are considerably lower.
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
Citation needed.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
This is correct, and for the people here who thought the EU side didn't really care about the Irish border and were just using it as leverage: If they didn't care about it, why did they give up so much - full market access, without financial contributions or FoM - to be sure it stayed open?
Financial contributions and freedom of movement (plus fish) could yet be negotiated by the EU as part of the Trade Deal or even as pre-conditions to participate in the Trade Deal negotiations.
Sure but the point of the backstop is that it's what happens if you can't agree on all that stuff. That's why it's the backstop, not the frontgo.
Hodges is right. There's a phrase you don't often see. And this is yet another reason to lay Boris, because he too has form in this area, and any backbench MP who has forgotten about Darius Guppy will be helpfully reminded by the other leadership candidates.
OT (Though European). Last week I was in Paris and around Notre Dame at night rats were wondering around openly. it was slightly shocking. Kate Adie on her Foreign Correspondance prog on Radio 4 has just said she's going to be speaking about rats in Paris
If lots of pro-deal types are happy betting on what they want to happen, and hardcore Leavers/Remainers aren't putting down any money, the odds will shift due to weight of money as a bookie seeks to maintain a balanced book.
Odds can reflect reality, but they can be strongly affected by what people think or want to happen.
So a couple of things are clear with Gyimah’s resignation:
1. As someone said above, Remainers are making their play for a second referendum and I bet Labour will (eventually) join them in supporting one.
2. There may well be a majority in the House for a second ref at that stage.
What I don’t understand is how the Remain people hope to actually engineer that referendum - because it requires primary legislation and (in all likelihood) an extension to article 50, which the government would need to request from the EU.
Therefore, if you want a second vote you’d need to get the government to concede the principle of holding one, or else change the government. Changing the government’s mind seems all but impossible - surely Tory MPs would kick out Theresa May the minute she even suggested a second referendum, and I suspect she’d rather resign that go down that route anyway. And obviously nobody would win the Tory leadership on a second referendum platform, so as soon as Theresa is kicked out/resigns then Tory members surely just replace her with a Brexiteer.
Changing the government requires Tory Remainers to vote down their own government in a VNOC (which I think is unlikely) and precipitates a general election which could take us past 29th March anyway.
This is the crux of it really - No Deal is the default position and was approved by our esteemed Parliamentarians not six months ago. Against this backdrop, I don’t think that MPs really have a choice - if they want to avoid no deal I think they *have* to approve the Withdrawal Agreement. The government can simply close off all other courses of action, including a second vote, even if those alternative courses of action command a majority in the House.
FPT but relevant to this thread.
Early January - Government loses VONC (with some Tory Remainers voting against the Government and in support of a GONU see below).
Within 14 days - Corbyn tries and fails to form government that has the confidence of the House
Within same 14 days - temporary "Government of National Unity" lead by Grieve (or someone else without ambition but respected across parties) gains the confidence of the House on a platform of a) asking for an extension of A50 b) enabling a second referendum c) holding a general election when the result of the referendum is known - and introduces the relevant legislation.
The idea of Corbyn working with Tory Scum in a GNU - that's the talk of a wild beast.....
Still more likely than him actually watching I’m a celeb...
King Cole, one of the most joyous aspects of the so-called VATmess was that the threshold was set at zero. So any sale required it.
Not to mention some who felt the information they had to collect in order to comply with that law might actually break laws on data collection.
I must say that there ought to be some sort of De Minimis rule, although I note Mr Thompsons comment. FWIW, I think our £85,000 is too high. However, presumably any VAT levied on costs involved in selling can be deducted.
I was involved, both as a company and as a sole trader with VAT from the time it came in 1973 until I stopped being any sort of 'trader' in 1992, and in the early days I was involved with explaining it to colleagues. I had my disagreements with VAT officials from time to time but on the whole it seemed to work well.
King Cole, it was drunken idiocy on the EU's part.
Not that the UK political class is much (any?) better, with their belief in magic algorithms to make the internet safe and the brilliant idea of a porn user database.
I do agree, though, that e-books should be exempt from VAT.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
King Cole, it was drunken idiocy on the EU's part.
Not that the UK political class is much (any?) better, with their belief in magic algorithms to make the internet safe and the brilliant idea of a porn user database.
I do agree, though, that e-books should be exempt from VAT.
We are, as far as the internet age and in particular safety issues are concerned not much beyond putting a man in front of a car with a red flag. As was the case in the early days of motoring.
King Cole, one of the most joyous aspects of the so-called VATmess was that the threshold was set at zero. So any sale required it.
Not to mention some who felt the information they had to collect in order to comply with that law might actually break laws on data collection.
I must say that there ought to be some sort of De Minimis rule, although I note Mr Thompsons comment. FWIW, I think our £85,000 is too high.
I was involved, both as a company and as a sole trader with VAT from the time it came in 1973 until I stopped being any sort of 'trader' in 1992, and in the early days I was involved with explaining it to colleagues. I had my disagreements with VAT officials from time to time but on the whole it seemed to work well.
I think its understandable to set the limit at 0 if you're trading on platforms like Amazon for 2 reasons.
Firstly it's well above 85k by itself and if I buy something from Amazon.co.uk that happens to be sold by you then I don't see why that suddenly makes Amazon a small trader. I as a consumer went to Amazon not you.
Secondly otherwise it would be wise open to abuse with traders setting up virtual shops, selling 84k of stock then shutting down and opening a new shop.
What the Commons has written can be changed, Parliament is sovereign.
Surely not. Remember that the campaign was all about Take Back Control. To become a Sovereign Nation and make our own laws. Unless of course that control and sovereignty are actually used. In which case booooo. Democracy is anti-democratic. How dare our MPs take back control and make laws. Booooo
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
This is correct, and for the people here who thought the EU side didn't really care about the Irish border and were just using it as leverage: If they didn't care about it, why did they give up so much - full market access, without financial contributions or FoM - to be sure it stayed open?
It was a point May made several times in the Commons. Now Gove is making it perhaps some Brexiteers might listen?
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
Indeed. But recessions and crashes are caused by people having your relaxed attitude to risk. Extreme risk is hard to model because it doesn't happen very often. But it does happen. It's not hard to imagine No Deal happening at the same time as a full-scale Trump trade war, for example. The first is under our control; the second isn't. The two together could be extremely nasty.
Carney's job is to prevent recession. Krugman's accusation of pessimism is strange, I think.
My attitude to risk is far less relaxed than a Govt. that has failed to make contingency plans for No Deal Brexit.
And don't get me started on Gordon Brown's negligent attitude to risk in relation to financial markets....
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
King Cole, one of the most joyous aspects of the so-called VATmess was that the threshold was set at zero. So any sale required it.
Not to mention some who felt the information they had to collect in order to comply with that law might actually break laws on data collection.
I must say that there ought to be some sort of De Minimis rule, although I note Mr Thompsons comment. FWIW, I think our £85,000 is too high.
I was involved, both as a company and as a sole trader with VAT from the time it came in 1973 until I stopped being any sort of 'trader' in 1992, and in the early days I was involved with explaining it to colleagues. I had my disagreements with VAT officials from time to time but on the whole it seemed to work well.
I think its understandable to set the limit at 0 if you're trading on platforms like Amazon for 2 reasons.
Firstly it's well above 85k by itself and if I buy something from Amazon.co.uk that happens to be sold by you then I don't see why that suddenly makes Amazon a small trader. I as a consumer went to Amazon not you.
Secondly otherwise it would be wise open to abuse with traders setting up virtual shops, selling 84k of stock then shutting down and opening a new shop.
Surely you don't think people would do what you suggest in your last sentence? (Tongue firmly in cheek!) It's one of the reasons why I think the £85k is too high.
Otherwise see what you mean. How does it work in the UK in the case of places like antique malls? I watch the various antique 'buying and selling" showsand it's by no means unusual for the person 'watching the stall' to say that they'll ring the owner to determine whether an offer is acceptable or not.
My late daughter had a reasonable booking/low level accountancy business maging small traders accounts.
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
Don't often side with he EU but on this one I respectfully disagree. Sales on Amazon etc should face same taxes as sales elsewhere. If I go to a high street store everything I buy there has VAT. So should Amazon. If you don't like it, don't sell on it.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
I'm ignorant of the Article 13 provisions, but ever since the Iraq War there has been a considerable trade in historical artefacts which 'fell out of the windows' of museums and such. If it deals with the provenance of such things, then sounds basically sensible.
What the Commons has written can be changed, Parliament is sovereign.
Yes they can but they are constrained presently by the rules as they were set out in the past. If they want to change those rules then of course they can but that in itself takes time.
And of course like all such people in authority they think the rules are great until they stop them doing something and then they moan about how they must be changed.
And no of course it is too late. If perhaps they had engaged earlier in the whole Brexit process rather than just trying to stop it then they would not be in this position.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
The main criticism of HW is that he was too focussed internationally, and not enough at home. So I think people from around the world might naturally have a different view.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
Given that all the allegations I am aware of (I think) date to his post Alzheimer's period I am not really inclined to criticise. Loss of comprehension of acceptable behaviour is a common symptom of such diseases.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
Don't often side with he EU but on this one I respectfully disagree. Sales on Amazon etc should face same taxes as sales elsewhere. If I go to a high street store everything I buy there has VAT. So should Amazon. If you don't like it, don't sell on it.
That was not MD's point as he said earlier. It was that a law designed to target large companies such as Amazon was introduced in a blanket form which adversely affected smaller companies which, because of their turnover, should not have been liable and that then drove them to trade via Amazon because the red tape involved in trading independently was not worth it.
A law designed to punish companies like Amazon has actually ended up helping them without making them pay any more taxes as a company than they were originally.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
Quite some branding magic has gone into the buzzphrase "No Deal". It's about folding arms, thinning lips, and telling someone who wanted to reach an arrangement with you that they can languish where they are because you're all right, Jack, and you don't need them. You'll be fine and they can eff off. He who can say "No Deal" is Anne Robinson, Alan Sugar, Noel Edmonds, Donald Trump. He's a big man, this little man who can say this. Walk away. No snowflakes or good Samaritanism here. "S*** my fat one" is what it means.
So far, so retchworthy. "No Deal" is of course an utterly ridiculous move on the chessboard to be played in such large-scale negotiations between, on one side, a weak declining country with an economy based on a sky-pointing square mile of international finance but a population numbering 60 million and, on the other, a large strong union with an economy five times bigger and a telos. But it suits the internal PR market well. At least it suits the 95% of the market accounted for by the two-headed monster of Morlocks and chatterers.
Have no doubt that things will move on. It is obvious that within a matter of months at most there will be a big public vote, whether it's a referendum or a general election. If it's an election it will be the Brexit election and Labour will be forced to adopt the Liberal Democrat position on Brexit, namely Remain. If it's a referendum then the options will NOT be sold as "No Deal" versus "Remain". They will be couched as "Leave" and "Remain".
Incidentally, this framing should - but won't - silence the carpers who knowingly observe that "Britain isn't Greece" and that the Electoral Commission needs to spend several thousand manhours working out whether to put a comma in the ballot question before the wording is considered by 10 different species of committee and cases for this that and the other are heard by some old men wearing wigs. Just use the same question as last time. Problem solved. Here it is: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Options: "Remain a member of the European Union" and "Leave the European Union".
Leave will win. Because it's about xenophobia, stupid. Lord Pearson of Brexit's lunch with Tommy Robinson says a lot about what's coming.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
No. Next.
Q1. Do you agree that both Trump and Putin are both pro-Brexit?
Q2. Do you agree that Trump is pro-Brexit because he favours doing trade deals with smaller nations rather than the EU?
Q3. Do you agree that it is in Putin's interests to weaken the EU by encouraging the UK to leave?
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
No. Next.
Q1. Do you agree that both Trump and Putin are both pro-Brexit?
Q2. Do you agree that Trump is pro-Brexit because he favours doing trade deals with smaller nations rather than the EU?
Q3. Do you agree that it is in Putin's interests to weaken the EU by encouraging the UK to leave?
Mr. Thompson, the VAT change didn't apply only to Amazon but to all businesses selling to EU citizens, and shifted the tax from place of sale to place of purchase, leading to micro and small businesses moving to Amazon.
King Cole, Article 13 is a different brand of EU idiocy. I think Article 17 is the deranged link tax, and Article 13 is about creative copyright, which the EU is trying to protect in a way that seems like it'll shaft content creators (comedians, perhaps journalists etc). It seems new and pre-existing videos on Youtube, for example will, in significant numbers [have to wait until Article 13 comes into force to be sure] be censored in the EU if there's an iota of doubt over the provenance of copyright. Platforms, like Youtube, will (as I understand it) but legally liable, so they're going to censor everything they have a question mark over as a means of protecting themselves legally.
It's bloody idiotic. The only question is whether it'll be an inconvenience or help drive people out of business.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
George Bush might be the last of the politicians that fought in the Second World War. It gave that generation a different, and I think better, world view.
We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
No. Next.
Q1. Do you agree that both Trump and Putin are both pro-Brexit?
Q2. Do you agree that Trump is pro-Brexit because he favours doing trade deals with smaller nations rather than the EU?
Q3. Do you agree that it is in Putin's interests to weaken the EU by encouraging the UK to leave?
Please - no facile answers.
No to all 3. Next.
You are showing your ignorance. I rarely make ad hominem remarks but this one is factual.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
The main two I've seen are:
*started the first Iraq war
*actions within this constituted a war crime
First is a stack of nonsense, second has the kernel of a point in the use of depleted uranium weaponry but ... still ...
Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.
Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.
If sterling takes a battering, it will go up, not down, e.g. if 1€ = £1, then it becomes £100k.
Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.
There is no reason it should stay linked. Once we are out of the EU the UK can set its own limit or just leave it at £85K.
Indeed. But recessions and crashes are caused by people having your relaxed attitude to risk. Extreme risk is hard to model because it doesn't happen very often. But it does happen. It's not hard to imagine No Deal happening at the same time as a full-scale Trump trade war, for example. The first is under our control; the second isn't. The two together could be extremely nasty.
Carney's job is to prevent recession. Krugman's accusation of pessimism is strange, I think.
My attitude to risk is far less relaxed than a Govt. that has failed to make contingency plans for No Deal Brexit.
And don't get me started on Gordon Brown's negligent attitude to risk in relation to financial markets....
The sensible contingency is to have a deal, as all these politicians discovered if they didn't know already. Brexit is a choice and a deal is in your control. It only has to be better than the situation you are contingent for, ie no deal
Anyway, I must be off, but it's been quite nice to have a civil and serious discussion about EU matters that don't relate to us leaving (or not). Do have a nice day everyone and, remember, agnatic law was critical to the divergence of opinion regarding the succession to the French throne in the 14th century.
Comments
I have adjusted the poll by adding in the latest Survation poll for Scotland from mid-November.
The result is:
Con 40.8% Lab 41.6% LD 9.7% UKIP 5.4% Grn 0.9% - a small Labour lead.
Adding this result and the latest YouGov poll (which showed a 5% Con lead) gives an EMA of:
Con 39.4% Lab 38.2% LD 8.6% UKIP 5.2% Grn 2.8% - a small Tory lead.
Putting this through Electoral Calculus with the latest Scotland figures gives:
Con 306
Lab 265
LD 17
UKIP 0
Green 1
SNP 40
PC 3
NI 18
Tories are 20 short of an overall majority.
Very weak minority Labour Government if C&S from SNP, LDs Green and PC.
Essentially, the EU shifted VAT due from the country of sale to the country of purchase (ie no longer the retailer's territory but the consumer's). This was for automated purchases (ie click a link, get the goods), and managed to shaft people like grannies selling knitting patterns and authors with their own online stores. The VAT, handled by Amazon if you sell through that site, is taken, I believe, from the author's share.
It's an object lesson how bureaucratic idiots with no knowledge of business or technology can have the best of intentions but end up harming those they sought to help and helping those they sought to (via more taxation) harm.
She looks miserable and unhappy and stressed to me. And she has some medical problems.
There is always another politician, from left or right, capable of building our dystopian future. Why should not Theresa leave the job for others?
There may be other politicians who dabble in surveillance infrastructure, but how can she be sure that they truly have the dark force of dystopia deep inside them?
A complete shambles.
The individual polls have quite a large margin of error so I smooth them out with an Exponential Moving Average with a smoothing constant of 10%.
The results don't bob around as much and the trends are clearer. At the moment there is a small trend to the Tories but they are still some way from an overall majority and risk a Corbyn minority government if a GE was held now (based on the polling).
However, why, I wonder are e-books not exempt or zero rated..... which in my experience results in less complexity..... as printed ones are.
I don't see why VAT should be taken by Amazon from the authors share. I THINK that's illegal. I fail to see why Amazon, as an American company, do not simply do what appears to be normal practice in the US, i.e. goods are $5, but when one buys them one discovers that they are in fact $5 plus 10% sales tax. A small author, like a small plumber etc may well be below the tax threshold and therefore not required to state their purchases.
In a previous life I had a lot to do with VAT, including that on medicines, which were standard rated when sold to the final retailer, but zero rated if 'sold' on prescription. The pharmacist, as final seller, simply reclaimed the tax paid from HMRC.
In my experience VAT had the considerable advantage of making small traders keep accounts, as they had to provide quarterly accounts to the Revenue.
GOP have incumbency so they abolish primaries, expecting no other R will run against their incumbent but the D vote will be split among several challengers. Dems respond by uniting around one challenger, except for one guy who volunteers to run as R.
Parliament's email systems should just automatically junk such emails like they do other spam.
Two points: he was not a proprietary trader and should not have been trading anything. He was there to do trades for the bank's clients and should not have been taking any risk at all (or only the minimal risk that obtains for any client trade). He deliberately hid his trades and repeatedly lied to those who did see that something was very wrong but were confused by what was really going on.
There were problems with UBS's controls but the real problem and the reason I wrote what I wrote on my blog is that the big mistake that those in the control functions made was to assume that Adoboli was telling them the truth and thinking it was their fault they couldn't understand. They trusted him. He abused their trust. That is why it took much longer than it should have to catch up with him. It was only when a sharp senior person insisted on getting a proper explanation in person that Adoboli was forced to admit to what he had done.
Most proprietary traders - the good ones - are not gamblers. They understand risk and know when to get out of a losing trade. They do not go for double or quits. The essence of good banking, good trading is - other than trust - understanding how to manage risk. He had no idea because he himself was a gambler and a liar, long before he came to the City. He should never have been employed - and how he (and others like him) came to be is a whole other (and unedifying) story.
The biggest mistake that finance has made in recent years is not understanding that one of their biggest risks are the people they employ. That is why they have been so abysmal at managing their people and why they are now, belatedly, focusing on conduct and character and culture.
But if someone abuses the trust placed in them that is their choice. Adoboli chose to do the wrong thing over and over again and chose not to do the right thing when he had the opportunity to do so. That is down to him not anyone else. And he should take responsibility for his actions not make excuses and justifications, which is what he has done ever since he was caught on 14th September 2011.
I see no good reason why he should be allowed to stay in this country. He knew what the penalty was. And we are better off without people like him spreading his fairy stories about what happened. There are people who are doing something to improve the City's culture. They are undermined - not helped - by people like him.
And the VAT is taken by Amazon from the authors share because that is the easiest way to do it. Authors generally get a much higher percentage of the digital version of their books compared to the hard copy. So in my case I get 10% of all hard copy sales and 50% of digital sales. Because the costs are far lower on digital it means that the Author can get more money, VAT is paid, but the product price is still lower for the customer. To say the author is paying the VAT is actually incorrect. It is just that without the VAT share the price of the product would be 1/6th lower than it is to the customer.
You're right that the second point is more arguable. One point in your favour is that neither party in Miller contested that the Article 50 notice was irrevocable. That was convenient for both the Government and Miller, and the two dissenting judgments were obviously troubled by it. But because it wasn't contested, the courts didn't decide the matter.
Overall, I don't think your argument is correct. Importantly, the De Keyser case (and Miller case) don't say Government need Parliamentary approval for any action they may take, only those that have the effect of modifying domestic law passed by Parliament. Essentially, it's a clash between two constitutional principles: (i) Government cannot change laws made by Parliament; and (ii) making and unmaking of Treaties is within the competence of Government.
Withdrawing the Article 50 notice (if allowed within EU law - and, as I say, that's probably the more contentious point) doesn't involve such a clash, in my view. It's within the competence of Government, and doesn't change laws made by Parliament because it doesn't have the effect of changing the 1972 Act or the Notification of Withdrawal Act, or the Withdrawal Act.
No doubt it'd be subject to some kind of legal challenge by someone, and that'd be interesting. But I'd be reasonably confident (say 75/25) that the view outlined above would win the day.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
As one who is trying to pluck up courage to put a novella he has written onto the market, I've often been surprised at the difference between on-lin and printed prices, but what you write makes complete sense.
And of course without VAT on all sorts of things from toothpaste to motor cars the price to the consumer would be lower if it wasn't for VAT.
Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit
https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
All politicians have a dark, kinky streak of dystopia deep inside them.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
When I say 'the author's share' I mean the rejiggification of money results in the author getting less. So a 2.99 book will have the income split not merely between Amazon and author, but Amazon, author, and the taxman with the Amazon share remaining the same (I think. My understanding is that the Amazon share used to increase the sales tax, which was smaller because of their tax-efficient domestication or suchlike).
And that's without considering the small and micro-businesses driven to online marketplaces like Amazon so the bigger firm handles the bureaucracy the EU pointless and counter-productively introduced.
Once all the worst parts are pointed out by both sides it will get even lower no doubt.
"[The] amount of money lost by his fraudulent trading: US$2,500,000,000. If the sums spent by UBS on remediation and dealing with the consequences of this loss were added in, the totals would be truly eye-watering."
Implying that US$2,500,000,000 itself was not eye-watering.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to an American senator who said "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking serious money".
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1068830267694096385
The deal not being passed is 1.14.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1068792462565617664
Not to mention some who felt the information they had to collect in order to comply with that law might actually break laws on data collection.
Well. Somewhat.
If lots of pro-deal types are happy betting on what they want to happen, and hardcore Leavers/Remainers aren't putting down any money, the odds will shift due to weight of money as a bookie seeks to maintain a balanced book.
Odds can reflect reality, but they can be strongly affected by what people think or want to happen.
However, presumably any VAT levied on costs involved in selling can be deducted.
I was involved, both as a company and as a sole trader with VAT from the time it came in 1973 until I stopped being any sort of 'trader' in 1992, and in the early days I was involved with explaining it to colleagues. I had my disagreements with VAT officials from time to time but on the whole it seemed to work well.
Not that the UK political class is much (any?) better, with their belief in magic algorithms to make the internet safe and the brilliant idea of a porn user database.
I do agree, though, that e-books should be exempt from VAT.
Firstly it's well above 85k by itself and if I buy something from Amazon.co.uk that happens to be sold by you then I don't see why that suddenly makes Amazon a small trader. I as a consumer went to Amazon not you.
Secondly otherwise it would be wise open to abuse with traders setting up virtual shops, selling 84k of stock then shutting down and opening a new shop.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
And don't get me started on Gordon Brown's negligent attitude to risk in relation to financial markets....
It's one of the reasons why I think the £85k is too high.
Otherwise see what you mean. How does it work in the UK in the case of places like antique malls? I watch the various antique 'buying and selling" showsand it's by no means unusual for the person 'watching the stall' to say that they'll ring the owner to determine whether an offer is acceptable or not.
My late daughter had a reasonable booking/low level accountancy business maging small traders accounts.
I'm ignorant of the Article 13 provisions, but ever since the Iraq War there has been a considerable trade in historical artefacts which 'fell out of the windows' of museums and such. If it deals with the provenance of such things, then sounds basically sensible.
And of course like all such people in authority they think the rules are great until they stop them doing something and then they moan about how they must be changed.
And no of course it is too late. If perhaps they had engaged earlier in the whole Brexit process rather than just trying to stop it then they would not be in this position.
A law designed to punish companies like Amazon has actually ended up helping them without making them pay any more taxes as a company than they were originally.
So far, so retchworthy. "No Deal" is of course an utterly ridiculous move on the chessboard to be played in such large-scale negotiations between, on one side, a weak declining country with an economy based on a sky-pointing square mile of international finance but a population numbering 60 million and, on the other, a large strong union with an economy five times bigger and a telos. But it suits the internal PR market well. At least it suits the 95% of the market accounted for by the two-headed monster of Morlocks and chatterers.
Have no doubt that things will move on. It is obvious that within a matter of months at most there will be a big public vote, whether it's a referendum or a general election. If it's an election it will be the Brexit election and Labour will be forced to adopt the Liberal Democrat position on Brexit, namely Remain. If it's a referendum then the options will NOT be sold as "No Deal" versus "Remain". They will be couched as "Leave" and "Remain".
Incidentally, this framing should - but won't - silence the carpers who knowingly observe that "Britain isn't Greece" and that the Electoral Commission needs to spend several thousand manhours working out whether to put a comma in the ballot question before the wording is considered by 10 different species of committee and cases for this that and the other are heard by some old men wearing wigs. Just use the same question as last time. Problem solved. Here it is: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Options: "Remain a member of the European Union" and "Leave the European Union".
Leave will win. Because it's about xenophobia, stupid. Lord Pearson of Brexit's lunch with Tommy Robinson says a lot about what's coming.
Q2. Do you agree that Trump is pro-Brexit because he favours doing trade deals with smaller nations rather than the EU?
Q3. Do you agree that it is in Putin's interests to weaken the EU by encouraging the UK to leave?
Please - no facile answers.
King Cole, Article 13 is a different brand of EU idiocy. I think Article 17 is the deranged link tax, and Article 13 is about creative copyright, which the EU is trying to protect in a way that seems like it'll shaft content creators (comedians, perhaps journalists etc). It seems new and pre-existing videos on Youtube, for example will, in significant numbers [have to wait until Article 13 comes into force to be sure] be censored in the EU if there's an iota of doubt over the provenance of copyright. Platforms, like Youtube, will (as I understand it) but legally liable, so they're going to censor everything they have a question mark over as a means of protecting themselves legally.
It's bloody idiotic. The only question is whether it'll be an inconvenience or help drive people out of business.
*started the first Iraq war
*actions within this constituted a war crime
First is a stack of nonsense, second has the kernel of a point in the use of depleted uranium weaponry but ... still ...
Anyway, I rather like this - and the recent photo of all the recent presidents get on suggests he was honest here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtTv4N_UwAEWcql.jpg:large