It would be interesting to see what polling would show for Britain in the May European elections, were we to revoke A50. I haven't seen any polling on that, but my guess would be that both pro and anti EU parties would have a surge, I don't think the general public have woken up to the nastiness of UKIP under Battern and his imp, Tommy Robinson.
A lib/Lab coalition. That'll do nicely. Under those circumstances It might even be possible to accomodate Corbyn
Hmmm.
A phrase about being 'twice shy' springs to mind.
I also think there would have to be a Costello figure to unite the government, and I don't see one.
Also, let's remember there was another poll that went the other way, showing Labour falling back and the Tories getting a majority. Predictions on the next election are a fool's game right now,
Yes. There have been three polls this year (YouGov, Survation and BMG) and they have shown quite wide somewhat contradictory variations between them
But using my EMA, the underlying trend is quite small - Tories and Labour have both lost 0.3% share since end 2018 but Tories still retain a 0.7% lead over Labour. LibDems gain 0.6% share (equally from Tories and Labour).
Con 38.7% Lab 38.0% LD 9.0%
Con 300 Lab 271 LD 17 UKIP 0 Green 1 PC 3 SNP 40
Tories 25 short of an overall majority. Lab minority possible with support from SNP and LDs
Which means if it fails this week, we're out with no deal.
I do hope the Remainers in Parliament finally come to understand this.
Baring a better deal, obviously
So, no deal, then?
That's the naked truth...
By all means bookmark this post and tell me I was wrong on April 1st. Believe me I shall be very happy if I am!
But you'll have some compensations. Like pointing out how Dominic Grieve's little games ensured it happened.....
You might have that compensation. You're a Leaver. Knowing my fellow Remainers are the ones who screwed up so imposingly will make matters worse, not better.
Take your comfort where you can.
There'll always be the puns.....
It wouldn't be a punnet, so much as a mess.
(In case anyone is wondering, that is a reference to Richard III, Act 3 scene 4.)
Also, let's remember there was another poll that went the other way, showing Labour falling back and the Tories getting a majority. Predictions on the next election are a fool's game right now,
And a third poll yesterday (BMG) showing the parties exactly tied again (on 36-36).
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.
None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
If only it were working well in either the UK or US, both of which are experiencing widening regional differentials (although there are the first signs of some regional rebalancing in the Uk property market).
All these things are relative. Social security claimants and NHS patients get the same benefits in the North-East as in the South-East. The people of the North-East aren't labouring to pay off an enormous bailout loan from the people of the South-East, either.
I think you can reasonably argue that redistributive payments and policies within the UK don't work nearly well enough (poorer areas would benefit from infrastructure investment, tax relief and business incentives; Scotland possibly receives too much subsidy from the centre, whereas Wales certainly receives too little.) But it's a damned sight better than the situation prevailing in Euroland.
I’ve never thought about the comparison before, but I’m not so sure. The North East is not only stuck in a slightly non-optimal currency area, it lacks any fiscal or administrative capability to do anything about it.
Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close): Approval of the deal: 32% Leaving on schedule: 23%
The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.
The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.
Betfair is showing a 20% probability that we Brexit in the 2nd quarter - presumably with May's deal.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
It would be interesting to see what polling would show for Britain in the May European elections, were we to revoke A50. I haven't seen any polling on that, but my guess would be that both pro and anti EU parties would have a surge, I don't think the general public have woken up to the nastiness of UKIP under Battern and his imp, Tommy Robinson.
Do I see large Tory loses in Scotland projected ? South Ayrshire is the obvious one but I think there are others
That is predicting the tories lose more than half their Scotland seats by a quick eyeball. All their NE seats bar Aberdeenshire/Aberdeen gone.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
'Populism' refers to the opinions of people who don't have the ability to think. People who want blue passports..£'s shillings and pence. ....to reintroduce the Groat ....to do away with en suite bathrooms.....Sun reading thickos
Ah, en suite bathrooms.
I had to explain to a Generation Zer of my acquaintance that the standard B&B or hotel experience in the 70s and earlier did *not* include en suite bathrooms, unless you were monied and could afford luxury.
But yes, “en suite” is a giveaway, it’s a fancy foreign affectation. They must be banned in Brexit Britain.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close): Approval of the deal: 32% Leaving on schedule: 23%
The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.
The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.
Betfair is showing a 20% probability that we Brexit in the 2nd quarter - presumably with May's deal.
It's quite possible that Grieve's gambit fails - it needs the backing of almost every MP who voted against the government on the amendments last week, yet is so dramatic that surely there will be some who baulk at the radicalism of it. If Grieve's initiative fails, the deal (probably after a short extension) is the only remaining acceptable way out.
I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
'Populism' refers to the opinions of people who don't have the ability to think. People who want blue passports..£'s shillings and pence. ....to reintroduce the Groat ....to do away with en suite bathrooms.....Sun reading thickos
Seeing as you are incapable of using punctuation correctly, I assume you consider yourself part of this basket of deplorables? That must be the source of your insight.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close): Approval of the deal: 32% Leaving on schedule: 23%
The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.
The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.
I would check the wording carefully. It's easier to arrange an extension once agreement has been made in principle, to allow the processes to happen, than an extension to allow people extra time to decide what they want to do.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
What a shame he wasn't Brexit Secretary between 2016 and 2018. I'm sure we'd have got a much better deal had he been.
He and Stewart Jackson essentially go around saying the EU was just about to give us everything we want thanks to his preparations, only for May to announce Chequers and blow it all up . For reasons.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
I think that 90% point was debunked. It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
Snip None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
If only it were working well in either the UK or US, both of which are experiencing widening regional differentials (although there are the first signs of some regional rebalancing in the Uk property market).
All these things are relative. Social security claimants and NHS patients get the same benefits in the North-East as in the South-East. The people of the North-East aren't labouring to pay off an enormous bailout loan from the people of the South-East, either.
I think you can reasonably argue that redistributive payments and policies within the UK don't work nearly well enough (poorer areas would benefit from infrastructure investment, tax relief and business incentives; Scotland possibly receives too much subsidy from the centre, whereas Wales certainly receives too little.) But it's a damned sight better than the situation prevailing in Euroland.
You are joking that Scotland gets too much. We are saddled with paying UK debt , Trident, Cross Rail , etc etc and get none of the benefits. We have been bled dry for almost 50 years and just had all powers removed because it suits some ar*ehole in London. EU looks like heaven compared to this sh**hole union.
All powers removed? I'm surprised I haven't heard more about the ensuing riots on the news.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
This makes no sense. Should Italy subsidise hearing bills in Finland?
It would be interesting to see what polling would show for Britain in the May European elections, were we to revoke A50. I haven't seen any polling on that, but my guess would be that both pro and anti EU parties would have a surge, I don't think the general public have woken up to the nastiness of UKIP under Battern and his imp, Tommy Robinson.
Do I see large Tory loses in Scotland projected ? South Ayrshire is the obvious one but I think there are others
That is predicting the tories lose more than half their Scotland seats by a quick eyeball. All their NE seats bar Aberdeenshire/Aberdeen gone.
Easy come easy go. Given the vastness of the swings in many of the seats they won going from Lab/LD to SNP then to Con, might as well see a huge swing to LD/Lab as needed so the people in those seats can try the whole lot in less than 10 years.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
The boats would be crossing the Med, EU or no.
The EU at least offers a framework for a possible co-ordinated response, even if they haven't so far been doing very well with it.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
I think that 90% point was debunked. It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.
It is certainly not a magic number and these things are matters of degree but when servicing debt absorbs more than we spend on education there clearly is a problem. If that debt is largely domestic as with Japan then there is an argument that the interest simply recycles into domestic demand but Italy is increasingly not in that situation either (neither are we btw).
I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close): Approval of the deal: 32% Leaving on schedule: 23%
The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.
The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.
I would check the wording carefully. It's easier to arrange an extension once agreement has been made in principle, to allow the processes to happen, than an extension to allow people extra time to decide what they want to do.
Good point.
"Will the House of Commons vote through a government motion to approve a EU withdrawal agreement?
This market refers to the FIRST MEANINGFUL VOTE ONLY. Any votes on amendments to the motion do not count."
YES is 32%
"What will be the official date that the United Kingdom leaves the EU?
For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. "
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
Yet Japan soldiers on.
Japan’s economic performance has been pretty poor for decades now. I remember when people were projecting that it’s economy was going to be bigger than the US.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
Italy is a bureaucratic, corrupt country with high unemployment where racist attitudes are more common than in other Western European countries. It’s not really a surprise why migrants don’t want to stay there.
I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
Mr. Nashe, that would be a legitimate criticism if May hadn't undercut him and his preferred option (an FTA, along Canadian lines) were on the table.
What sort of spineless moron spends 2 years pretending to do a job in which they have no agency?
His defence is he's not spineless, only a moron, as he didn't know it would happen.
Which, incidentally, I find hard to believe even though Mr Dancer seems to buy it. It was a running gag on here and elsewhere that Davis was threatening to resign for months and months before Chequers. So he did know something about Mays intentions and was not happy about it.
I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
The boats would be crossing the Med, EU or no.
The EU at least offers a framework for a possible co-ordinated response, even if they haven't so far been doing very well with it.
Indeed, and with the population of Africa projected to treble this century, it is not a problem likely to end soon.
The EU led interdiction in the Sahel as well as the support for the Libyan Coastguard has reduced the numbers crossing significantly though.
The 2018 figure of trans mediterranean migrants was 67,122 of which less than a third were to Italy.
This compares to 123,000 in 2017,and 246,000. in 2016.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
Italy is a bureaucratic, corrupt country with high unemployment where racist attitudes are more common than in other Western European countries. It’s not really a surprise why migrants don’t want to stay there.
If all of this is the case then I'm not entirely sure why the new Italian Government hasn't chartered a load of trains and shipped its unwanted migrants to Germany. Many other EU Governments are still sore over Merkel's handling of the Syrian crisis: the Italians wouldn't be short of allies.
Mr. Nashe, that would be a legitimate criticism if May hadn't undercut him and his preferred option (an FTA, along Canadian lines) were on the table.
What sort of spineless moron spends 2 years pretending to do a job in which they have no agency?
His defence is he's not spineless, only a moron, as he didn't know it would happen.
Which, incidentally, I find hard to believe even though Mr Dancer seems to buy it. It was a running gag on here and elsewhere that Davis was threatening to resign for months and months before Chequers. So he did know something about Mays intentions and was not happy about it.
He shouldn't have spent so much time working on Dead Ringers.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
She is in big trouble for having a series of meetings and calls with Salmond as First Minister with civil servants present but not disclosing them for several months. Not the civil servants fault but her own. Did we not previously establish that the principal civil servant here was married on a leading SNP activist? Pretty sure we did.
Grieve and Boles are both being threatened by their constituency associations.
I know about Boles, but do you have a source for that claim about Grieve? Because despite Amplefield Andy's persistent claims to the contrary, I've seen nothing to suggest he might be retiring or forced out. Indeed, what I have seen suggest Beaconsfield CA is foursquare behind him.
Doesn't mean it's not out there given how little time I have to research such things, but I'd be interested to see it.
I think that Pierce is just pot stirring there, bluntly. Much speculation and innuendo, very little hard fact.
Still, even the Daily Mail has known to get things right at times, so he may be correct.
Pot stirring on the being fired yes, but he did cite Grieve directly at planning to step down [at the next election] (presumably in 2022 not next week)
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
Populism = giving the people what they want and what they believe is best for themselves, as opposed to what the bien pensant political class believes to be in their best interest.
Mr. kle4, he may have felt he had an opportunity to influence when in the Cabinet, but that outside he'd have none.
Regardless, his preferred option isn't on the table. Only May's is.
And I appreciate he quit relatively early when he realised that so he could argue properly for his option still. But I've personally witnessed Jackson talk about how it went down for Davis and both seem to describe it in terms of their being totally blindsided even though they were so close to the EU bending over backwards before us. Which is not the defence you make, it's the 'I'm a moron' defence.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
Italy is a bureaucratic, corrupt country with high unemployment where racist attitudes are more common than in other Western European countries. It’s not really a surprise why migrants don’t want to stay there.
Seemingly the migrants don’t want to stay in France either or go to Eastern Europe. Denmark has become a lot less welcoming too.
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.
None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that the Eurozone isn’t an optimal currency area
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
Populism = giving the people what they want and what they believe is best for themselves, as opposed to what the bien pensant political class believes to be in their best interest.
Anti-populism is stepping in to prevent giving the people what they have expressed they want in Referendums and elections, because they didn't REALLY want it, or were too thick to understand the issues.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
I think that 90% point was debunked. It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.
It is certainly not a magic number and these things are matters of degree but when servicing debt absorbs more than we spend on education there clearly is a problem. If that debt is largely domestic as with Japan then there is an argument that the interest simply recycles into domestic demand but Italy is increasingly not in that situation either (neither are we btw).
It depends what the debt has been spent on.
If it is mainly on investment (infrastructure, educated people etc) which provide a return in excess of the interest charge, there isn't a problem. If it is mainly on consumption with no return, it is a problem.
We don't say of someone with a private mortgage "when servicing the mortgage debt absorbs more than they spend on xyz there clearly is a problem" because there isn't always clearly a problem. The mortgage could be 300% of their income and still be sustainable.
I think that governments do not distinguish sufficiently between debt for consumption and debt for investment. McDonnell is trying to make that distinction but get rubbished for it by this government.
Many other EU Governments are still sore over Merkel's handling of the Syrian crisis
Citation?
I mean, obviously the countries with southern borders would rather other EU states took more refugees, while the other EU states don't want to, but the decision Merkel took that triggered the anti-immigration people on the British right was specifically that people who got to Germany from some other EU state *wouldn't* be shipped back to that state and told they were their problem not Germany's.
Miss Cyclefree, Denmark's sandwiched between two very open countries (Sweden and Germany) so it's perhaps unsurprising they've tried to discourage a flood of migrants entering.
Longer term, seeing how the million or two that Merkel invited to Germany act will be significant. Will they stay in Germany? Move elsewhere in the EU? Etc etc.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
All true. But I'm not sure that the truly gross inequalities of opportunity in a globalised world would survive any system at all, short of frontiesr manned by soldiers with machine guns. If you're a young bloke (and initially it's mostly young blokes) with a bit of initiative who happens to be born in, say, Libya, it is simply bonkers to imagine that you'll spend your life selling tins of fruit from a makeshift shop rather than try your damnedest to get to a developed country and earn 20 or 50 times as much. How many lives do you have to waste? And if the system is really hermetically sealed, the jobs will migrate to the developing world, cf. China et al. The refugee crisis arising from wars like Syria is a separate phenomenon on top of that. FOM at least gives a chance that the countries on the EU's border don't end up shouldering nearly all the costs.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Well quite - and the Brexit decision was largely a consequence of this, allied to the effectiveness of anti-EU propaganda in sections of the media, and the rank inability of pro-EU figures to sell a positive vision of the organisation in response.
Anyway, if the Government retained full control of its own borders then we'd never have got close to leaving: the sovereignty movement alone wasn't strong enough. Immigration was an insignificant issue in British politics when Blair entered office; by 2015 Ukip had won an eighth of the popular vote in a GE and David Cameron was forced to fulfil his manifesto pledge to hold an EU referendum. No prizes for guessing what caused all of that.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Pretty obvious when you stop to think of it, for like, more than two seconds, isn't it?
It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.
They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
What part of the 'diversity shtick' do you find so distateful?
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
I think it means that she’s finally realised that her last faint hope for her deal is to persuade Remainers to back her.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.
None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that the Eurozone isn’t an optimal currency area
Many outside the SE of England will tell you that the Sterling zone isn't either.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Yes.
Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I'd be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
There Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
You cannot have a Single Market unless people are free to live and work wherever they wish within it.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Yes.
Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it
That is the will of nation, apparently
52% of those who could be arsed to express an opinion is indeed a mandate.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Pretty obvious when you stop to think of it, for like, more than two seconds, isn't it?
It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.
They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.
If western countries don’t want more immigrants coming than they know how to handle, sooner or later they've got to start thinking about what would incentivise them to stay put, and then doing that.
A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.
They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?
But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".
So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.
At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we unilaterally reintroduce FOM
Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration
Ah, but are they more or less terrified of the consequences of Brexit not happening?
If somebody else got the blame, I reckon they'd be pretty happy.
There is nobody else to blame. Just politicians, of whatever stripe.
Which is why we have the impasse. I suspect most politicians realise that Brexit has turned into a damaging blind alley, from which we would be very wise to escape.
A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.
They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?
But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".
So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.
At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we unilaterally reintroduce FOM
Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration
Tax credits, more specifically. A very small proportion of pension and unemployment benefits go to EU migrants. But I don't believe that is the driver for the concern.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
I think it means that she’s finally realised that her last faint hope for her deal is to persuade Remainers to back her.
Not sure what took so long. Yes, there are more Tories who want no deal or super hard Brexit than something too soft, but not enough to see it through, so going soft or trying to coax over remainers really was the only way to get it through. Oh well, opportunity missed, and now remainers will be either very very happy or very very unhappy with no middle ground.
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?
Italy has never faced up to its choices. Salvini and Grillo are manifestations of that, as was Berlusconi before them. Italy is an existential threat to the EU, as Greece isn't. Greece is, was, and always will be a basketcase. Everyone knew it but thought it didn't matter, but it could be inoculated, at high expense as it turned out. Italy is different. It is a founding member of the Treaty of Rome, and important to the project.
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
Populism = giving the people what they want and what they believe is best for themselves, as opposed to what the bien pensant political class believes to be in their best interest.
The people: "What we want and what is best for us is very low taxes and the very best public services and don't you bien pensant political class tell us it's not possible, that choices have to be made". Populism is at root, infantilism, which is why strong father figures are popular.
All true. But I'm not sure that the truly gross inequalities of opportunity in a globalised world would survive any system at all, short of frontiesr manned by soldiers with machine guns. If you're a young bloke (and initially it's mostly young blokes) with a bit of initiative who happens to be born in, say, Libya, it is simply bonkers to imagine that you'll spend your life selling tins of fruit from a makeshift shop rather than try your damnedest to get to a developed country and earn 20 or 50 times as much. How many lives do you have to waste? And if the system is really hermetically sealed, the jobs will migrate to the developing world, cf. China et al. The refugee crisis arising from wars like Syria is a separate phenomenon on top of that. FOM at least gives a chance that the countries on the EU's border don't end up shouldering nearly all the costs.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
I do not often agree with you Nick, but this post sums up the problem. The imbalances in lifestyle and life expectancy have become more imbalanced in tbe last 100 or so years, but it is only now that technology allows people to see what they are missing and offer possible solutions.
To reduce immigration, improve people's lives where they live. Better healthcare, reliable food supply, hygiene, housing and education because that is what many people lack.
[ If I was Super-powerful-magician for a day, i would wipe out religion which has been the cause of more wars and suppression of women than just about anything else in history ]
The USA shows that there is no easy solution to the migrant issue. In states like Alabama or Maine, the foreign-born population is still low, whereas in California or New York it is enormous. For Europe, the long-term migrant issue is most serious for Germany, Austria, the Low Countries and Scandinavia.
The U.K. is theoretically blessed, thanks to being an island. In reality, there is almost no political will to really reduce numbers. That is abundantly clear from the immigration White Paper. We also give our citizenship away. Here’s, it’s 5 years for a passport. In Germany it’s 7 or 8 years, Spain 10, and in Brazil 15.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
It means she is writing in the Daily Express. She is telling the headbangers to prefer her deal to Remain.
Edit. On a minor linguistic note, it's remarkable the extent to which "Brexit" is word associated with "catastrophic".
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It is one of those situations where one has to question do they really not realise or do they simply not care?
The former, mainly.
What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.
I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Pretty obvious when you stop to think of it, for like, more than two seconds, isn't it?
It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.
They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.
If western countries don’t want more immigrants coming than they know how to handle, sooner or later they've got to start thinking about what would incentivise them to stay put, and then doing that.
A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.
They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?
But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".
So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.
At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we unilaterally reintroduce FOM
Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration
Tax credits, more specifically. A very small proportion of pension and unemployment benefits go to EU migrants. But I don't believe that is the driver for the concern.
Indeed, anti-migrant feeling in Britain, much as it is in Italy, is mostly against non-EU migrants.
Mr. G, Halifax being part of HBOS, which was registered in Scotland.
On the pound: a transition would be desirable for Scotland, claiming a right to a currency union with a nation you just left, for an indeterminate period, remains an unhealthy blend of blind optimism and arrogant complacency.
But isn't it nice to discuss this rather than leaving the EU? See how much more civilised it is
LOL, you are confused MD, Halifax took over BoS not other way round. Also anyone who wants can use any currency they want , it is fairly common with USD. Down to personal choice and circumstances and most natural for newly independent countries.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Yes.
Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it
That is the will of nation, apparently
52% of those who could be arsed to express an opinion is indeed a mandate.
That will not save Mrs May if she takes us over the cliff.
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE
Corbyn has only marginally more control over what his MPs will do than May has over hers.
Mr. Royale, the absence of a transition period would be bad. However, the deal then locks us into the backstop in the absence of anything else, and an agreement (trade) with the EU gives each and every member nation a veto. If they exercise it, we stay in the backstop.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It is one of those situations where one has to question do they really not realise or do they simply not care?
The former, mainly.
What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.
I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.
Maybe. Many who oppose the WA do have good reasons of course. However, when we have no Brexit I would not be surprised if there are still plenty of people regretting contributing to its downfall.
Comments
But using my EMA, the underlying trend is quite small - Tories and Labour have both lost 0.3% share since end 2018 but Tories still retain a 0.7% lead over Labour. LibDems gain 0.6% share (equally from Tories and Labour).
Con 38.7%
Lab 38.0%
LD 9.0%
Con 300
Lab 271
LD 17
UKIP 0
Green 1
PC 3
SNP 40
Tories 25 short of an overall majority.
Lab minority possible with support from SNP and LDs
I had to explain to a Generation Zer of my acquaintance that the standard B&B or hotel experience in the 70s and earlier did *not* include en suite bathrooms, unless you were monied and could afford luxury.
But yes, “en suite” is a giveaway, it’s a fancy foreign affectation. They must be banned in Brexit Britain.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/13/brexit-commons-vote-now-unlikely-before-christmas
I'll get my coat, as I have a mighty eight foot horn to inflate and pull out.
Have a good morning.
It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.
There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.
This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).
It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
That word is populism.
Should Italy subsidise hearing bills in Finland?
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
The EU at least offers a framework for a possible co-ordinated response, even if they haven't so far been doing very well with it.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
It is certainly not a magic number and these things are matters of degree but when servicing debt absorbs more than we spend on education there clearly is a problem. If that debt is largely domestic as with Japan then there is an argument that the interest simply recycles into domestic demand but Italy is increasingly not in that situation either (neither are we btw).
"Will the House of Commons vote through a government motion to approve a EU withdrawal agreement?
This market refers to the FIRST MEANINGFUL VOTE ONLY. Any votes on amendments to the motion do not count."
YES is 32%
"What will be the official date that the United Kingdom leaves the EU?
For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. "
By end March is 25%
April - June is 20%
Japan’s economic performance has been pretty poor for decades now. I remember when people were projecting that it’s economy was going to be bigger than the US.
Which, incidentally, I find hard to believe even though Mr Dancer seems to buy it.
It was a running gag on here and elsewhere that Davis was threatening to resign for months and months before Chequers. So he did know something about Mays intentions and was not happy about it.
The EU led interdiction in the Sahel as well as the support for the Libyan Coastguard has reduced the numbers crossing significantly though.
The 2018 figure of trans mediterranean migrants was 67,122 of which less than a third were to Italy.
This compares to 123,000 in 2017,and 246,000. in 2016.
https://www.iom.int/news/mediterranean-migrant-arrivals-reach-67122-2018-deaths-reach-1549
I note the figure for 2018 is not complete, but the trend is clear.
Regardless, his preferred option isn't on the table. Only May's is.
She is in big trouble for having a series of meetings and calls with Salmond as First Minister with civil servants present but not disclosing them for several months. Not the civil servants fault but her own. Did we not previously establish that the principal civil servant here was married on a leading SNP activist? Pretty sure we did.
If it is mainly on investment (infrastructure, educated people etc) which provide a return in excess of the interest charge, there isn't a problem. If it is mainly on consumption with no return, it is a problem.
We don't say of someone with a private mortgage "when servicing the mortgage debt absorbs more than they spend on xyz there clearly is a problem" because there isn't always clearly a problem. The mortgage could be 300% of their income and still be sustainable.
I think that governments do not distinguish sufficiently between debt for consumption and debt for investment. McDonnell is trying to make that distinction but get rubbished for it by this government.
I mean, obviously the countries with southern borders would rather other EU states took more refugees, while the other EU states don't want to, but the decision Merkel took that triggered the anti-immigration people on the British right was specifically that people who got to Germany from some other EU state *wouldn't* be shipped back to that state and told they were their problem not Germany's.
Longer term, seeing how the million or two that Merkel invited to Germany act will be significant. Will they stay in Germany? Move elsewhere in the EU? Etc etc.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Anyway, if the Government retained full control of its own borders then we'd never have got close to leaving: the sovereignty movement alone wasn't strong enough. Immigration was an insignificant issue in British politics when Blair entered office; by 2015 Ukip had won an eighth of the popular vote in a GE and David Cameron was forced to fulfil his manifesto pledge to hold an EU referendum. No prizes for guessing what caused all of that.
It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.
They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.
Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it
That is the will of nation, apparently
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
To reduce immigration, improve people's lives where they live. Better healthcare, reliable food supply, hygiene, housing and education because that is what many people lack.
[ If I was Super-powerful-magician for a day, i would wipe out religion which has been the cause of more wars and suppression of women than just about anything else in history ]
The U.K. is theoretically blessed, thanks to being an island. In reality, there is almost no political will to really reduce numbers. That is abundantly clear from the immigration White Paper. We also give our citizenship away. Here’s, it’s 5 years for a passport. In Germany it’s 7 or 8 years, Spain 10, and in Brazil 15.
No wonder we’re the destination of choice...
Edit. On a minor linguistic note, it's remarkable the extent to which "Brexit" is word associated with "catastrophic".
High immigration
Welfare state
Democracy
What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.
I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.