Having thought about how today's events affect the probabilities of various outcomes, such as leaving on time with a deal, leaving without a deal, or extending A50 for a referendum, I am now prepared to share my considered conclusion with you all: I haven't the faintest idea.
This is a board of intelligent and well informed folk across the political spectrum often with niche insights. I think it fair to say that nobody is sure what happens next or what the outcome will be.
4 weeks to go and we are all in the fog. I am not convinced that either MPs or Civil Service are any better informed.
It almost certainly isn't 4 weeks to go. That's the only thing we can be reasonably sure about.
Either for reasons of can-kicking (forced by either the govt or by parliament), or because the government needs time to implement the deal, it's highly likely that there'll be an A50 extension.
It is possible that the EU might veto an extension or attach unacceptable conditions but I think the risk is relatively low, providing that the date doesn't go beyond June 30.
No Deal shouldn't be ruled out - it's easy enough to cause it by accident, never mind design - but I think it's become quite unlikely this last 7 days.
No no deal having got down to 1.03 earlier, it's now back to 1.17 with a fair few thousand put on the table waiting to be matched - some of which arrived in £'000s as I was logged in when it was lodged. Someone with deep pockets seems to think no deal on 29/3 is still in play.
Or someone hedging against large potential losses in the real world if there is no deal. An insurance bet rather than an estimate of the probability.
That is a possibility, I guess. Except that the Betfair bet is incredibly misleading, titled "no deal Brexit, yes or no" but with the small print tying it specifically to 29/3 only. It's the worse presentation I have seen. The specific date reduces its insurance worth IMO.
There's £1700 left at 1.11 if anyone fancies it. I thought it was attractive at 1.07.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
I think that needs thought. Legislation already passed has us leaving on 29th March. Plus if parliament is needed to trigger Art 50 (Supreme Court) how do we know it isn't needed for an amendment of the decision? ...
The reason parliament needed to authorise the Article 50 notice was because the effect would be to remove rights conferred by parliament. I've never seen any argument that the same would be true of an extension (or even a revocation). That learned blog on the subject of royal consent argued from the point of view that the request for an extension would be pure royal prerogative. We know that in law the leaving date can be amended by regulations rather than primary legislation.
Having thought about how today's events affect the probabilities of various outcomes, such as leaving on time with a deal, leaving without a deal, or extending A50 for a referendum, I am now prepared to share my considered conclusion with you all: I haven't the faintest idea.
This is a board of intelligent and well informed folk across the political spectrum often with niche insights. I think it fair to say that nobody is sure what happens next or what the outcome will be.
4 weeks to go and we are all in the fog. I am not convinced that either MPs or Civil Service are any better informed.
It almost certainly isn't 4 weeks to go. That's the only thing we can be reasonably sure about.
Either for reasons of can-kicking (forced by either the govt or by parliament), or because the government needs time to implement the deal, it's highly likely that there'll be an A50 extension.
It is possible that the EU might veto an extension or attach unacceptable conditions but I think the risk is relatively low, providing that the date doesn't go beyond June 30.
No Deal shouldn't be ruled out - it's easy enough to cause it by accident, never mind design - but I think it's become quite unlikely this last 7 days.
No no deal having got down to 1.03 earlier, it's now back to 1.17 with a fair few thousand put on the table waiting to be matched - some of which arrived in £'000s as I was logged in when it was lodged. Someone with deep pockets seems to think no deal on 29/3 is still in play.
Or someone hedging against large potential losses in the real world if there is no deal. An insurance bet rather than an estimate of the probability.
That is a possibility, I guess. Except that the Betfair bet is incredibly misleading, titled "no deal Brexit, yes or no" but with the small print tying it specifically to 29/3 only. It's the worse presentation I have seen. The specific date reduces its insurance worth IMO.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
I think that needs thought. Legislation already passed has us leaving on 29th March. Plus if parliament is needed to trigger Art 50 (Supreme Court) how do we know it isn't needed for an amendment of the decision?
Secondly, agree MV passes either in March or soon after. All options look improbable. Most are in practical terms impossible. MV passing on TMs (slightly tweaked) deal is not impossible or the realm of fantasy. No deal is fantasy, given parliament's actual opinions, as is some very different WA, as is revoke. WA as it more or less stands is improbable but will happen. It's a Sherlock Holmes principle. Eliminate the impossible, and then unlikely things become possible ('whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth').
Yep. The deal it is. It has to be because everything else is impossible. And also, a bird in the hand, and all that: the deal is there already just needing tweaking. Everything else is a blank page.
So glad we are agreed. That must make it close to certain. (Irony alert). But I notice that we agree with Rob Ford's new year predictions for 2019, which have done pretty well so far...……..
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
Given zero growth in Italy for 20 years caused by it's inability to compete on level pricing with Germany that's not surprising. The lira used inflation to inflate debts away which is impossible in a German controlled low inflation economy...
The Italian model worked because it screwed savers. (And the savers were therefore very keen to join the Euro to stop the government screwing them.) What they forgot is that by stopping screwing savers, the result was an end to cheap capital.
All that being said, it is worth remembering that Italy was always going to face a pretty horrible slowdown, given it has the worst demographics in developed Europe. Indeed, Italy's demographics and economy look remarkably like Japan's - with the difference being that Japan's government has been able to print money* to keep things going.
The 11%, all things considered, sounds about right for the "Euro drag" for Italy. The question is, can Italy leave the Euro in a way that doesn't (a) fracture the country by screwing Italian savers and retirees (of which there are many), and (b) allows it to continue to service its obligations?
It's a tough one. And made more tough by the fact that the Italians have refused to follow the Spanish and the Portuguese in liberalising their labour markets.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
Or, in other words, nothing has changed!
Indeed. Although ERG members would have to be crazy not to be quietly confident that they might get their no deal brexit.
I still think the chances of a no deal Brexit are close to zero.
Agree also. But the ERG might think they are in with a shout.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
And the length of the extension is entirely in the hands of the EU. I think it quite likely that parliament will force May to ask for a short extension at the summit on 21 March and the EU could well respond by granting one ... to the end of 2020. And unless May is prepared to countenance no deal at a week's notice she will have to accept.
Are you sure? What about the EU elections? Unless everyone, including the ECJ, agrees that a Member who intends to Leave should be represented in the European Parliament.
Well a member who intends to leave has been represented in the EP for almost 3 years now so I don't see why that situation couldn't continue. Of course the U.K. would have to hold EP elections this year and the MEPs would serve until we left. No biggie I don't think and a better option from the EUs point of view since there might be a chance the U.K. could resolve its political crisis in two years, but there is no chance that could happen in three months.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
There was probably a brief moment when some of the TIG wondered whether they had done the right thing when Jezza started talking about a 2nd vote.
They can relax. Turns out that was all crap and many members of the party have spent the day ramming up the anti-jew, pro-hozbollah stuff and tweeting about coups in venezuela (presumably run by the Rothschilds etc etc).
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
Having thought about how today's events affect the probabilities of various outcomes, such as leaving on time with a deal, leaving without a deal, or extending A50 for a referendum, I am now prepared to share my considered conclusion with you all: I haven't the faintest idea.
This is a board of intelligent and well informed folk across the political spectrum often with niche insights. I think it fair to say that nobody is sure what happens next or what the outcome will be.
4 weeks to go and we are all in the fog. I am not convinced that either MPs or Civil Service are any better informed.
It almost certainly isn't 4 weeks to go. That's the only thing we can be reasonably sure about.
Either for reasons of can-kicking (forced by either the govt or by parliament), or because the government needs time to implement the deal, it's highly likely that there'll be an A50 extension.
It is possible that the EU might veto an extension or attach unacceptable conditions but I think the risk is relatively low, providing that the date doesn't go beyond June 30.
No Deal shouldn't be ruled out - it's easy enough to cause it by accident, never mind design - but I think it's become quite unlikely this last 7 days.
No no deal having got down to 1.03 earlier, it's now back to 1.17 with a fair few thousand put on the table waiting to be matched - some of which arrived in £'000s as I was logged in when it was lodged. Someone with deep pockets seems to think no deal on 29/3 is still in play.
Or someone hedging against large potential losses in the real world if there is no deal. An insurance bet rather than an estimate of the probability.
That is a possibility, I guess. Except that the Betfair bet is incredibly misleading, titled "no deal Brexit, yes or no" but with the small print tying it specifically to 29/3 only. It's the worse presentation I have seen. The specific date reduces its insurance worth IMO.
There's £1700 left at 1.11 if anyone fancies it. I thought it was attractive at 1.07.
I'm still not sure the evidence is there to justify such a big shift in the odds. What has really changed, apart from Donald Tusk's statement about an extension making sense?
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
I agree with their Italian analysis too. Italy should never have joined the Euro, and then should have left in 2010/11.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
I agree with their Italian analysis too. Italy should never have joined the Euro, and then should have left in 2010/11.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
You agree that without the Euro, the Italian economy would track the UK and Australia?
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
Or, in other words, nothing has changed!
Indeed. Although ERG members would have to be crazy not to be quietly confident that they might get their no deal brexit.
I still think the chances of a no deal Brexit are close to zero.
Agree also. But the ERG might think they are in with a shout.
The ERG are not entirely easy to understand. But I think they must comprehend that if we should fail to leave this time, and if by pushing an extreme (in parliament terms) approach the ERG is instrumental in keeping us in the EU, there is no obvious route to leaving ever in the foreseeable future. I just don't think the UK is going to vote to go through this again in current adult lifetimes.
If at the end of the day the ERG oblige us to remain then they are dilettante game players and not serious. I think that underneath they serious about getting us out and are holding out for the best deal possible in their eyes in the actual world. If not, they are not rational.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
I agree with their Italian analysis too. Italy should never have joined the Euro, and then should have left in 2010/11.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
You agree that without the Euro, the Italian economy would track the UK and Australia?
No, as I said below, the Italian economy was going to slow down anyway.
Given the demographics, Italy was always going to struggle to get above 0.75-1.25% per year. But they got 0.5% per year, rather than 1.0% per year.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
I agree with their Italian analysis too. Italy should never have joined the Euro, and then should have left in 2010/11.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
You agree that without the Euro, the Italian economy would track the UK and Australia?
No, as I said below, the Italian economy was going to slow down anyway.
Given the demographics, Italy was always going to struggle to get above 0.75-1.25% per year. But they got 0.5% per year, rather than 1.0% per year.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
And the length of the extension is entirely in the hands of the EU. I think it quite likely that parliament will force May to ask for a short extension at the summit on 21 March and the EU could well respond by granting one ... to the end of 2020. And unless May is prepared to countenance no deal at a week's notice she will have to accept.
Are you sure? What about the EU elections? Unless everyone, including the ECJ, agrees that a Member who intends to Leave should be represented in the European Parliament.
Well a member who intends to leave has been represented in the EP for almost 3 years now so I don't see why that situation couldn't continue. Of course the U.K. would have to hold EP elections this year and the MEPs would serve until we left. No biggie I don't think and a better option from the EUs point of view since there might be a chance the U.K. could resolve its political crisis in two years, but there is no chance that could happen in three months.
I think the problem is that the UK leaving changes the balance of the MEPs for all the other countries. This has already been revised in preparation for the new elections in June. If the UK has MEPs after June but they leave before the next EP elections then all the other MEP numbers are wrong for the remainder of the Parliament.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary 2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
I think I'd agree, although I think they're also spot on about Italy,
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
I agree with their Italian analysis too. Italy should never have joined the Euro, and then should have left in 2010/11.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
You agree that without the Euro, the Italian economy would track the UK and Australia?
No, as I said below, the Italian economy was going to slow down anyway.
Given the demographics, Italy was always going to struggle to get above 0.75-1.25% per year. But they got 0.5% per year, rather than 1.0% per year.
Greece's growth has been 0.75% p.a. since 1999, although they got wild boom up to 2008, followed by wild bust since, rather than Italy's permanent stagnation.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
I think that needs thought. Legislation already passed has us leaving on 29th March.
Not until the relevant sections are commenced by the executive, which has yet to happen, although I agree that under international law the UK will cease to be subject to the EU treaties from that date if nothing else happens.
Plus if parliament is needed to trigger Art 50 (Supreme Court) how do we know it isn't needed for an amendment of the decision?
AIUI the argument there is that SCOTUK ruled that parliamentary approval was needed to take British citizens’ EU rights away by invoking A50, but as no rights would be extinguished by revoking the A50 notification then the government would simply be exercising the executive power of the state to conduct international relations delegated to it by the sovereign.
If ever I think the Tories have a number of odious tw*ts I just need to remind myself of this thug. He is not only a disgrace to Labour, he is a disgrace to the country who's parliament he sits in. Nothing short of a nasty little fascist.
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Personally, I would have put Japan as by far the best compare for Italy: similar demographics, similar exports-to-GDP, similar (in 1999) levels of government debt, similar savings rates, similar levels of home ownership, broadly similar type of of exports.
Italy does have agricultural and luxury goods exports, and corruption, but the two are pretty good analogs.
Keith Williams, independent chair of the first ‘root and branch’ Rail Review to be supported by government, will today (26 February 2019) announce that the rail franchising system cannot continue in the way it is now.
In the George Bradshaw Address, Keith Williams is expected to say:
I have heard a great deal about the franchising model….driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.
Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers and farepayers.
I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart.
We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.
1) Will the MV pass? Unlikely; therefore 2) Will Lab vote for no no deal? Difficult, because 3) That will be seen as a vote for the government; so 4) If no no deal fails then will A50 extension pass? No, for the same reason as 3), therefore; 5) We are back where we started and the ERG wait for us to leave with no deal, so 6) We are fucked. Unless 7) Cooper whips Lab votes for her amendment which is unlikely, so therefore the only option is 8) The MV passes.
Voila!
As far as I know, Theresa May can ask for an extension without being mandated to do so by MPs.
I think that needs thought. Legislation already passed has us leaving on 29th March.
Not until the relevant sections are commenced by the executive, which has yet to happen, although I agree that under international law the UK will cease to be subject to the EU treaties from that date if nothing else happens.
Plus if parliament is needed to trigger Art 50 (Supreme Court) how do we know it isn't needed for an amendment of the decision?
AIUI the argument there is that SCOTUK ruled that parliamentary approval was needed to take British citizens’ EU rights away by invoking A50, but as no rights would be extinguished by revoking the A50 notification then the government would simply be exercising the executive power of the state to conduct international relations delegated to it by the sovereign.
Keith Williams, independent chair of the first ‘root and branch’ Rail Review to be supported by government, will today (26 February 2019) announce that the rail franchising system cannot continue in the way it is now.
In the George Bradshaw Address, Keith Williams is expected to say:
I have heard a great deal about the franchising model….driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.
Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers and farepayers.
I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart.
We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.
Once outside of the EU we could privatise it as it should have been done. On a regional basis with companies owning both infrastructure and services. That way they would not be able to blame each other for failings.
The problem we have in this country is that we have never done regulated privatisation well. Other countries are very successful at having private companies operating under very strict controls to provide services and get a small but very steady return year after year. We seem to think you either have complete public ownership or no rules at all privatisation (I exaggerate but the basic principle is accurate). We ned to do the whole public/private partnership thing much better.
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Are you embarrassed to have just said you agreed with their analysis on Italy?
Yes.
I looked at the headline numbers, not at how they got there.
The basis for their analysis is ridiculous. You need to compare countries with similar demographics, debt-to-GDP, exports, etc., in and out of the Eurozone to make sensible comparisons. Claiming that Italy is somehow a mix of
- the UK (which has relatively healthy demographics, a low savings rate, a massive current account deficit, and services based economy, and is completely unlike Italy's)
and
- Australia (which has very healthy demographics, a low savings rate, and an economy completely dominated by exports of raw materials to China and construction)
is absurd.
If you want to compare Italy to somewhere, compare it to Japan.
FPT the study of the impact of the Euro on individual countries. IMO, it suggests that GDP per head would be about 11% higher in Italy, and 6% higher in France, had they remained outside the Euro.
Apparently 83% of businesses who export to the EU still don’t have a Customs registration number . That’s 200,000 businesses !
I'm a bit suspicious of that number. HMRC keep writing to me as MD of my company urging us to get a registration number because they think we export to the EU. But we don't: in fact, we don't sell goods at all, we only sell services and licences B2B (and at the moment all of our customers are in the US anyway). I don't know what they are basing that figure on.
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Personally, I would have put Japan as by far the best compare for Italy: similar demographics, similar exports-to-GDP, similar (in 1999) levels of government debt, similar savings rates, similar levels of home ownership, broadly similar type of of exports.
Italy does have agricultural and luxury goods exports, and corruption, but the two are pretty good analogs.
Australia. Not so much.
Japan was the comparator for Germany though.
If you compare Germany and Australia by the same means then I suspect that the Euro would look bad for German growth, or just maybe the biggest mineral producer in decades of commodity boom is not the best benchmark.
The benchmark for Greece was 40% Barbados and 40% New Zealand. Interesting choices, perhaps being good tourist destinations is the only common factor!
Greece's growth has been 0.75% p.a. since 1999, although they got wild boom up to 2008, followed by wild bust since, rather than Italy's permanent stagnation.
I think it's important to overlay employment trends, not just look at headline GDP numbers.
If you do that, then Germany and the Netherlands do well. Portugal also does pretty well. Spain does great.
Italy does poorly but not appallingly. (There's some growth, albeit not a lot.)
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Personally, I would have put Japan as by far the best compare for Italy: similar demographics, similar exports-to-GDP, similar (in 1999) levels of government debt, similar savings rates, similar levels of home ownership, broadly similar type of of exports.
Italy does have agricultural and luxury goods exports, and corruption, but the two are pretty good analogs.
Australia. Not so much.
Japan was the comparator for Germany though.
If you compare Germany and Australia by the same means then I suspect that the Euro would look bad for German growth, or just maybe the biggest mineral producer in decades of commodity boom is not the best benchmark.
The benchmark for Greece was 40% Barbados and 40% New Zealand. Interesting choices, perhaps being good tourist destinations is the only common factor!
My guess is that they made up the benchmarks by seeing which mix of other countries produced the best correlation to the pre-Euro growth profile. If I'm right, file in the bin.
TM remarkable achievement (so far) is she has kept her cabinet together against all the odds
Except all the Cabinet minister who have resigned over the past months?
Most of them were useless
She picked them, though!
And they let her down
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.......
She does seem to have made an above average number of dodgy picks.
She has but not in Corbyn's league
That's not the point; St Jeremy's LotO, not PM. There are those here who will tell you that once he's PM he'll do a great deal better at picking Ministers.
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Personally, I would have put Japan as by far the best compare for Italy: similar demographics, similar exports-to-GDP, similar (in 1999) levels of government debt, similar savings rates, similar levels of home ownership, broadly similar type of of exports.
Italy does have agricultural and luxury goods exports, and corruption, but the two are pretty good analogs.
Australia. Not so much.
Japan was the comparator for Germany though.
If you compare Germany and Australia by the same means then I suspect that the Euro would look bad for German growth, or just maybe the biggest mineral producer in decades of commodity boom is not the best benchmark.
The benchmark for Greece was 40% Barbados and 40% New Zealand. Interesting choices, perhaps being good tourist destinations is the only common factor!
Well, Germany and Italy in 1999 were quite similar.
Both were big exporters of capital goods. Both had poor demographics.
But Germany was at a cyclical low, because of the integration of East Germany. (Which, by the way, meant it was probably going to outperform irrespective of whether it was in the Euro.) And Italy was at a cyclical high, with government debt-to-GDP of around 125%.
Irrespective of Euro membership, Italy's demographics and indebtedness were going to hit it. Irrespective of Euro membership, Germany's improving East was going to boost it.
Last comment on the CEP study. Barbados is a country with as many people as Luton. It's economy is a third the size of Luton's. You can't use it as a sensible compare for Greece.
TM remarkable achievement (so far) is she has kept her cabinet together against all the odds
Except all the Cabinet minister who have resigned over the past months?
Most of them were useless
She picked them, though!
And they let her down
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.......
She does seem to have made an above average number of dodgy picks.
She has but not in Corbyn's league
That's not the point; St Jeremy's LotO, not PM. There are those here who will tell you that once he's PM he'll do a great deal better at picking Ministers.
The government's No Deal impact report is most unimpressive. There's really not much to it. Frankly I could have written that with just a few hours' internet searching to fill in some of the figures.
Unbelievable . I’m beginning to think many Leave politicians really want the UK to stay . The only good thing about Brexit is the EU won’t have to put up with Farage anymore l
Excellent. Hopefully TIG will have coalesced into a party by then. Under a quasi-PR system it might be an opportunity to send a message.
Leave means leave. Aren't suicide pacts illegal ?
Leave means anything nutters want it to be. Self harm means self harm. If 52% of your neighbours voted to stick pins in their eyes wouldn't you want to persuade them it was a bad idea and that they had the opportunity to change their minds? Only the gullible still think Brexit is a good idea.
Keith Williams, independent chair of the first ‘root and branch’ Rail Review to be supported by government, will today (26 February 2019) announce that the rail franchising system cannot continue in the way it is now.
In the George Bradshaw Address, Keith Williams is expected to say:
I have heard a great deal about the franchising model….driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.
Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers and farepayers.
I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart.
We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.
Thanks for posting that. It'll be interesting to see where he goes with it: from that snippet, it doesn't sound like he thinks a return to BR is the solution. If so, I am not surprised.
Although I do have concerns this review will go the same way as the other reviews we've had over the years, e.g. Hansford.
Comments
There's £1700 left at 1.11 if anyone fancies it. I thought it was attractive at 1.07.
That's what is crucial to Derby voters tonight.
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1099382439418441728
All that being said, it is worth remembering that Italy was always going to face a pretty horrible slowdown, given it has the worst demographics in developed Europe. Indeed, Italy's demographics and economy look remarkably like Japan's - with the difference being that Japan's government has been able to print money* to keep things going.
The 11%, all things considered, sounds about right for the "Euro drag" for Italy. The question is, can Italy leave the Euro in a way that doesn't (a) fracture the country by screwing Italian savers and retirees (of which there are many), and (b) allows it to continue to service its obligations?
It's a tough one. And made more tough by the fact that the Italians have refused to follow the Spanish and the Portuguese in liberalising their labour markets.
https://www.cep.eu/en/eu-topics/details/cep/20-years-of-the-euro-winners-and-losers.html
They can relax. Turns out that was all crap and many members of the party have spent the day ramming up the anti-jew, pro-hozbollah stuff and tweeting about coups in venezuela (presumably run by the Rothschilds etc etc).
1. Greece has been a Euro benificiary
2. Spain has been a Euro loser
If you look at employment compared to 1/1/99, Spain now has 40% more people employed than then, while Greece has something like 10% less.
I would argue that Spain's economy has probably grown quicker than it would have done out of the Euro, but only because it had incredibly painful reform forced on them. And that Greece has performed markedly worse, because it allowed completely unsustainable debts to be run up.
So firstly you repeatedly call me an Islamaphobe, and now an NSDAP troll.
There's only one person trolling here, and it isn't me.
Also, where's Ireland?
Italy's GDP has grown at 0.5% p.a., since 1999, which has just about kept pace with population growth.
You can make your own judgments from there.
The problem they have is that every day they stay, makes getting out more painful.
If at the end of the day the ERG oblige us to remain then they are dilettante game players and not serious. I think that underneath they serious about getting us out and are holding out for the best deal possible in their eyes in the actual world. If not, they are not rational.
Given the demographics, Italy was always going to struggle to get above 0.75-1.25% per year. But they got 0.5% per year, rather than 1.0% per year.
Some small progress in certain areas but overall it looks like a horror show .
Australia exports raw materials. To - errr - China. See: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/aus/all/show/2017/
Italy exports manufactured products. See: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/ita/all/show/2017/
If you were to say - of all the developed economies in the world, which one looks least like Italy's?, I think Australia would be top of the list.
Italy does have agricultural and luxury goods exports, and corruption, but the two are pretty good analogs.
Australia. Not so much.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rail-review-chair-says-franchising-cannot-continue-in-its-current-form
Keith Williams, independent chair of the first ‘root and branch’ Rail Review to be supported by government, will today (26 February 2019) announce that the rail franchising system cannot continue in the way it is now.
In the George Bradshaw Address, Keith Williams is expected to say:
I have heard a great deal about the franchising model….driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth the needs of passengers have changed whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.
Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers and farepayers.
I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart.
We need to recognise that there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution which will work for every part of the country and all types of passenger.
Two good points. Thanks.
She does seem to have made an above average number of dodgy picks.
The problem we have in this country is that we have never done regulated privatisation well. Other countries are very successful at having private companies operating under very strict controls to provide services and get a small but very steady return year after year. We seem to think you either have complete public ownership or no rules at all privatisation (I exaggerate but the basic principle is accurate). We ned to do the whole public/private partnership thing much better.
I looked at the headline numbers, not at how they got there.
The basis for their analysis is ridiculous. You need to compare countries with similar demographics, debt-to-GDP, exports, etc., in and out of the Eurozone to make sensible comparisons. Claiming that Italy is somehow a mix of
- the UK (which has relatively healthy demographics, a low savings rate, a massive current account deficit, and services based economy, and is completely unlike Italy's)
and
- Australia (which has very healthy demographics, a low savings rate, and an economy completely dominated by exports of raw materials to China and construction)
is absurd.
If you want to compare Italy to somewhere, compare it to Japan.
https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/1100314953817432064
If you compare Germany and Australia by the same means then I suspect that the Euro would look bad for German growth, or just maybe the biggest mineral producer in decades of commodity boom is not the best benchmark.
The benchmark for Greece was 40% Barbados and 40% New Zealand. Interesting choices, perhaps being good tourist destinations is the only common factor!
If you do that, then Germany and the Netherlands do well. Portugal also does pretty well. Spain does great.
Italy does poorly but not appallingly. (There's some growth, albeit not a lot.)
And Greece does absolutely atrociously.
And the ones who proclaim WTO is marvelous when they clearly haven’t a frigging clue how it works .
I'm not one of them, though!
Both were big exporters of capital goods. Both had poor demographics.
But Germany was at a cyclical low, because of the integration of East Germany. (Which, by the way, meant it was probably going to outperform irrespective of whether it was in the Euro.) And Italy was at a cyclical high, with government debt-to-GDP of around 125%.
Irrespective of Euro membership, Italy's demographics and indebtedness were going to hit it.
Irrespective of Euro membership, Germany's improving East was going to boost it.
"The Intersectionality Score Calculator":
https://intersectionalityscore.com
https://twitter.com/leavemnsleave/status/1100313986615123968?s=21
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/anti-racism-charity-demands-jeremy-corbyn-kicks-chris-williamson-out-of-labour_uk_5c755a12e4b0bf166203c407?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter
Even if she does, she has to be out of Downing Street pronto. Who wants her modus operandi through the trade agreement negotiations?
Although I do have concerns this review will go the same way as the other reviews we've had over the years, e.g. Hansford.
Forest 1
Derby 0
Just rejoice at that news.....
The opposite of his view is likely .
If changes to the backstop are made and the ERG still don’t support the deal then the chances of a second referendum go up.
They clearly then would be seen as wanting no deal and the rest of the party will turn against them.