"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
The EU already issues debt, and that is broadly uncontroversial. However, the sums are limited, and there are many restraints on this. It has never really been possible for a "jointly and severally guaranteed" debt scheme in Euros to be created at the EU level, because those countries that cannot print Euros will rebel.
My understanding is that this is at the Eurozone level. It is a scheme in which Eurozone members jointly and severally guarantee a certain bond issuance. In this case, it would be a €500bn issue.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
Is he aware that Alan Johnson was a former trade union leader?
He is obviously an imperialist, saboteur & revisionist. To the salt mines!
Look on the positive side: at least Aaron Bastani realises that the BMA is just another Trade Union defending the entrenched privileges of its members.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Pshaw. If Mr. Craig works really, really hard in the gym, he may one day aspire to approach the raw muscularity of Boris' Atlantean physique.
Yes yes - very amusing - but you're derailing what was a serious effort of inquiry.
And I see Philip has chosen to deflect and obscure rather than participate too.
A shame.
If you really want me to participate then I would say Daniel Craig.
Daniel Craig is actually human while Mr Creosote is a cartoonish absurd character. But its only because you've made that forced choice - I'd also estimate Mr Creosote as over 30 stone not 17.
OK excellent. So in this context - and only this context - he looks a little bit like Daniel Craig to you.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
Also means the Treasury is on the hook.
We're not in the EU.
There aren't budget contributions during the transition?
We're not responsible for the EU's liabilities going forward, in the same way that Norway makes contributions but is not responsible for the EU's liabilities.
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
Sunk cost fallacy. Is the extra cash we'll need to spend on it NOW worth the pay off ?
Net extra cash.
By cancelling you should get money back by being able to sell off land already purchased.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
You are probably right but I would still like to see the fine print. I would still be surprised if it explicitly stated the debt carried the full faith of thee German government. But we shall see.
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
That doesn't explain why millions of people have worked continuously and why more do so each day.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
Question for those who understand these things: How would you mutualize a Euro-bond obligation across countries that don't share the Euro? It would seem a huge currency exposure risk for those with a national currency. Or am I on the wrong track?
The EU treaties are also fairly explicit about the amounts and purposes of pan-EU spending and borrowing powers. Which is why I'm very surprised this is a pan-EU project, as it would likely require a treaty codicil.
We're not responsible for the EU's liabilities going forward, in the same way that Norway makes contributions but is not responsible for the EU's liabilities.
Yes, if that Henrik Enderlein Twitter thread is correct, we wouldn't be on the hook if we extend the transition - the way he describes it, it's a long-term EU liability leveraging their AAA credit rating (which is admittedly rather anomalous, since it's based on the hope but not the certainty that the rich member states would in the final event cough up).
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
Sunk cost fallacy. Is the extra cash we'll need to spend on it NOW worth the pay off ?
Net extra cash.
By cancelling you should get money back by being able to sell off land already purchased.
I don't think the Gov't will have contracts in its favour on early termination.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
Question for those who understand these things: How would you mutualize a Euro-bond obligation across countries that don't share the Euro? It would seem a huge currency exposure risk for those with a national currency. Or am I on the wrong track?
The EU treaties are also fairly explicit about the amounts and purposes of pan-EU spending and borrowing powers. Which is why I'm very surprised this is a pan-EU project, as it would likely require a treaty codicil.
That's why the German courts are angry. The EU is ignoring its treaties and doing whatever it feels like rather than what the treaties say - and the ECJ is giving it cover to do so.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
Sunk cost fallacy. Is the extra cash we'll need to spend on it NOW worth the pay off ?
Net extra cash.
By cancelling you should get money back by being able to sell off land already purchased.
I don't think the Gov't will have contracts in its favour on early termination.
Are you suggesting government lawyers might not be very good at contract details ?
The Tory lead is still a little bigger than it was on election day, after a fortnight of media hammering and everything going pear-shaped (including, apparently, Boris himself!).
Now just imagine that we emerge gradually from lockdown, the world doesn't end, and all that testing and contact tracing comes fully online ... will the lead expand, or contract?
Seeing as Corbyns 2017 40% was rubbish, is this a better or worse poll for Labour than the 2019 GE result?
The prediction Gods tell me that the UK-US trade talks will break down, Sterling will face a 1931-style crisis, and we'll be forced to admit that Brexit was a giant folly and apply to join the Euro.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
Question for those who understand these things: How would you mutualize a Euro-bond obligation across countries that don't share the Euro? It would seem a huge currency exposure risk for those with a national currency. Or am I on the wrong track?
The EU treaties are also fairly explicit about the amounts and purposes of pan-EU spending and borrowing powers. Which is why I'm very surprised this is a pan-EU project, as it would likely require a treaty codicil.
That's why the German courts are angry. The EU is ignoring its treaties and doing whatever it feels like rather than what the treaties say - and the ECJ is giving it cover to do so.
What rule of law?
Woah, hang on there.
The German constitutional court ruled on whether the ECB's bond buying program was compatible with German basic law (which is superior to EU law), nothing about whether the EU had breached its treaties. The ECJ already ruled that the ECB was acting within its remit.
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
Or indeed if people actually understood the issues.
The prediction Gods tell me that the UK-US trade talks will break down, Sterling will face a 1931-style crisis, and we'll be forced to admit that Brexit was a giant folly and apply to join the Euro.
The prediction Gods tell me that the UK-US trade talks will break down, Sterling will face a 1931-style crisis, and we'll be forced to admit that Brexit was a giant folly and apply to join the Euro.
Hardly, given both Boris and Starmer oppose joining the Euro that is not on the cards.
The only thing that might change if Starmer becomes PM is we rejoin the single market
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The prediction Gods tell me that the UK-US trade talks will break down, Sterling will face a 1931-style crisis, and we'll be forced to admit that Brexit was a giant folly and apply to join the Euro.
I'd rather go down the EEA route, which is basically what UK Eurosceptics used to say we would go to if we left the EU (up to around 2016 that is...)
» show previous quotes Malcolmg is the Nat equivalent of HYUFD. Nicola could tell him the moon was made of cheese an he would ask her what variety. I always find it very odd that someone who is so critical of everyone else could be so gullible when it comes to messages from their own side.
You really are a totally thick numpty. You do not obviously read my posts , jog on you sad thicko.
Haha, I have read plenty of your posts, all of which would indicate you are not quite in a position to insult anyone with respect to intelligence. Certainly if clarity of argument and ability to articulate said argument are indicators of intelligence then you clearly weren't at the front of the proverbial queue , though the biggest indicator of all is that even by the low bar that is set by people who believe in the backward cretinous ideology of nationalism, you dip well below it. I think I was being very unfair to HYUFD though, comparing you with him was very unkind to the poor chap.
One naturally hesitates to get involved but iirc @malcolmg is from the Nicola-sceptic wing of the cybernats, though I'm not sure if that helps or hinders the comparison with other posters.
John, It is pointless trying to have an intelligent discussion with that empty headed dumpling. @DecrepiterJohnL
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
I put that into Electoral Calculus, not sure if I did it right as I have never tried it before, and it gave the Tories the same number of seats as at the GE, and Labour one more, with the majority still 80.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
Question for those who understand these things: How would you mutualize a Euro-bond obligation across countries that don't share the Euro? It would seem a huge currency exposure risk for those with a national currency. Or am I on the wrong track?
The EU treaties are also fairly explicit about the amounts and purposes of pan-EU spending and borrowing powers. Which is why I'm very surprised this is a pan-EU project, as it would likely require a treaty codicil.
The loan is raised against EU "own resources", which is it's share of national VAT receipts. I believe the EU doesn't take the maximum share it could - essentially it's a budgetary decision made in Council. So the VAT take will be bumped up to pay for it, but not yet.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
38% of care homes, what a horrendous failure. It's probably in 3.8% of households generally. A failure by a factor of 10.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
So the Swedes can get their share of the bill?
And their share of spending, if needed.
Everyone is supposed to get a share to support domestic consumption, but also to benefit from common investment for the future. An emphasis is being placed on investing to establish European production of things like computer chips, new battery technology etc. Plus new digital infrastructure, renewable energy and new mobility concepts.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
So the Swedes can get their share of the bill?
And their share of spending, if needed.
Everyone is supposed to get a share to support domestic consumption, but also to benefit from common investment for the future. An emphasis is being placed on investing to establish European production of things like computer chips, new battery technology etc. Plus new digital infrastructure, renewable energy and new mobility concepts.
The UK's groupthink about the EU and Euro is going to be sorely tested over the next year, I think.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
I put that into Electoral Calculus, not sure if I did it right as I have never tried it before, and it gave the Tories the same number of seats as at the GE, and Labour one more, with the majority still 80.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
I put that into Electoral Calculus, not sure if I did it right as I have never tried it before, and it gave the Tories the same number of seats as at the GE, and Labour one more, with the majority still 80.
I am not a great fan of Electoral Calculus , but that is probably not too far off. The Tory lead in 2019 was just over 11.5% - which some round up to 12%.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
German 10 year bonds are currently yielding a solid -0.54% (as in, the very best you can do over a decade is to lose 5% of your money). So yes, I'm sure they would.
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
That's true but Germany is Germany and Spain must abide by the stability pact.
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
The fine print may take a while. This is a French/German agreement, the other 25 need to be brought on board first, for the fine print to be worked out. The main thrust of the proposal is to temporary sideline the stability pact for specific purposes. Germany is firmly behind this proposal, in fact, it originates from there (here).
I see so the idea of a new credit, the European Commission, is now being shelved in favour of allowing the Eurozone nations more borrowing leeway to finance Corona themselves..??
The Commission is not being shelved, in fact it is supposed to play a central role in implementing the whole thing and in allocating the support measures. It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
So the Swedes can get their share of the bill?
And their share of spending, if needed.
Everyone is supposed to get a share to support domestic consumption, but also to benefit from common investment for the future. An emphasis is being placed on investing to establish European production of things like computer chips, new battery technology etc. Plus new digital infrastructure, renewable energy and new mobility concepts.
The UK's groupthink about the EU and Euro is going to be sorely tested over the next year, I think.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
38% of care homes, what a horrendous failure. It's probably in 3.8% of households generally. A failure by a factor of 10.
Care homes are more of a work place than a household.
Now how many workplaces would allow in people discharged from hospital without some sort of quarantine period.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
38% of care homes, what a horrendous failure. It's probably in 3.8% of households generally. A failure by a factor of 10.
Everywhere that's had it bad it's been largely due to care homes, though hasn't it? It's a disease that hits the old and frail and is worst in confined, crowded rooms, it's inevitable
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Wishing it were otherwise does not work.
I am really not an optimist by nature - but objectively cannot agree with you there. Opinium and today's poll are in the same ballpark , and the fact of the continuing crisis will still be helping the incumbent Government. That would dissipate in an election campaign.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Wishing it were otherwise does not work.
I am really not an optimist by nature - but objectively cannot agree with you there. Opinium and today's poll are in the same ballpark , and the fact of the continuing crisis will still be helping the incumbent Government. That would dissipate in an election campaign.
Some people might think the continuing crisis is the reason the government are back down to GE size leads
I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the vitamin D question? It's been rumbling away, mostly in the background it seems, for quite a long time - it was one of the motivating factors when I decided to buy multivitamins for our household weeks ago - but the whole topic of the potential role of vitamin D deficiency in Covid-19 mortality has never come front and centre, which surprises me.
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
I would go with insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome being much worse in the BAME. Diabetes rates are about double the Caucasian rate in South Asians, obesity and blood pressure in Afro-caribbeans.
Do we have any idea who these people are? When I look at their twitter account they have 17 followers and looks like only set up in April. Are they a rebrand on an existing polling company?
To be honest I see no reason to doubt the figures
The government and Boris are not going to find 'getting back to normal' easy
There are just too many comfortable with lockdown, shielded by furlough, and just plain scared to mix and go back to work
It could be a shock for some people if later this year a vaccine becomes available, and the coronavirus epidemic suddenly ends. There would no longer be any health requirement for working from home. Employers would ask people to return to the office. Many will still be scared, but with COVID at an end they would try to find some other justification for not going to the office. I do not think that working from home will survive for most people in a post-COVID world in the long run.
Two of the companies I contract to have already said they intend to fundamentally change the way they work once this is over and have working from home as the norm with office work being for specific meetings/events/actions that cannot be done from home. I am hearing the same from a lot of friends.
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Almost as lovely as the rate at which it has been slipping!
Boris has managed to put the entire country under house arrest, tank the economy, nationalise half of it, and let a killer virus run rampant through our care homes, killing off thousands of people's grandparents.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
But the trend is becoming pretty clear. The stratospheric 26% leads have disappeared , and even this reduced lead likely flatters the Tories in the context of normal politics having been suspended from public view. Were an election to take place, I doubt that the Tories would do better than a 5% or 6% lead. Byelections would also show anti-Government swings.
I wish it was true.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Wishing it were otherwise does not work.
I am really not an optimist by nature - but objectively cannot agree with you there. Opinium and today's poll are in the same ballpark , and the fact of the continuing crisis will still be helping the incumbent Government. That would dissipate in an election campaign.
Some people might think the continuing crisis is the reason the government are back down to GE size leads
The passage of time and evidence of missteps will certainly have eroded the lead , but we remain some way from the resumption of normal politics and - overall - that is still likely to be helpful to the incumbent here and in other countries.
Do we have any idea who these people are? When I look at their twitter account they have 17 followers and looks like only set up in April. Are they a rebrand on an existing polling company?
To be honest I see no reason to doubt the figures
The government and Boris are not going to find 'getting back to normal' easy
There are just too many comfortable with lockdown, shielded by furlough, and just plain scared to mix and go back to work
It could be a shock for some people if later this year a vaccine becomes available, and the coronavirus epidemic suddenly ends. There would no longer be any health requirement for working from home. Employers would ask people to return to the office. Many will still be scared, but with COVID at an end they would try to find some other justification for not going to the office. I do not think that working from home will survive for most people in a post-COVID world in the long run.
Two of the companies I contract to have already said they intend to fundamentally change the way they work once this is over and have working from home as the norm with office work being for specific meetings/events/actions that cannot be done from home. I am hearing the same from a lot of friends.
Indeed. The ceo of IBM has said similar. Ditto Vodaphone I believe.
Comments
My understanding is that this is at the Eurozone level. It is a scheme in which Eurozone members jointly and severally guarantee a certain bond issuance. In this case, it would be a €500bn issue.
https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1262430422954389504
By cancelling you should get money back by being able to sell off land already purchased.
What rule of law?
Spanish 10 year government bonds are much more attractive, you get an incredibly 0.8% per year.
Microsoft, by comparison, pays a 1.1% dividend yield.
The German constitutional court ruled on whether the ECB's bond buying program was compatible with German basic law (which is superior to EU law), nothing about whether the EU had breached its treaties. The ECJ already ruled that the ECB was acting within its remit.
Be careful not to just see what you want to see.
The only thing that might change if Starmer becomes PM is we rejoin the single market
Why not, then simply reform the rules that govern how much pan European debt can be raised? that would be the natural course if Germany were really standing behind this paper.
But no. They need a different credit. I want to see the fine print.
Who are not dickheads of course.
@DecrepiterJohnL
It is also not supposed to be constrained to Eurozone members, but to all member states.
Despte this, the Tories still have a lead.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-germany-propose-e500b-eu-recovery-fund/
An emphasis is being placed on investing to establish European production of things like computer chips, new battery technology etc. Plus new digital infrastructure, renewable energy and new mobility concepts.
IMO so far the Government would do better than at GE 2019
Wishing it were otherwise does not work.
Now how many workplaces would allow in people discharged from hospital without some sort of quarantine period.
There are drops of water falling out of the air and the sky’s gone a funny shade of grey.
Does anyone know what it is and whether I should worry?
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1262456057668001792?s=20
The company may be new kid on the block, but is BPC recognised.
Good graphics on the site too.
There's a lot of money resting on this race, or even rumours of the outcome of this race.
https://twitter.com/DrNeeltje/status/1262140984768389122