Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
No, you really don't.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
The critical issue seems to be how to feed decision making up into the UK parliament. If the federal cantons are - effectively -electoral colleges, or otherwise direct the decisions, then a monolithic England woud swamp decisions (and itself be a majoritarian tyranny in its own right sans PR).
Edit: sorry, onlyjust seeen Foxy'spost a little below.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
The trick is to find a way of doing it that doesn’t result in hundreds more politicians and thousands of hangers-on. Yes, it would be good to see a constitutional convention, and I’d support a federal system whereby England doesn’t have an automatic overall majority at the federal level.
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
We could go back to East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex. East Anglia could even rejoin the EU (But not adopt the euro)...
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
No, you really don't.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
That's a caricature though not wholly unfair. However there are Scots who are proud to be British and have the English and others as neighbours and friends and sporting rivals. Nor imo are they a minority.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
No, you really don't.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
I would have thought Scotland wouldn't be happy to be seen as only equal to an English region such as SW or SE. I would prefer a federal UK but I think we are well past that now.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
I think this will happen in the medium term. Brexit requires that the EU has control over its financial centre. In the short term things will continue, but the writing is on the wall.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
That's not a bigger issue it is the status quo. The PM is the defacto leader of the English Parliament.
So what if the Federal Parliament is much diminished? That's what federalism is about.
As for one bit being 10x bigger . . . Yes it is. Nothing to be done about it, accept it. England is 10x bigger. No splitting England up is not the solution.
F1: looks unlikely we'll be visiting China this year.
Shame. I was looking forward to some world class moral hypocrisy.
That was obvious a while ago - The issue it creates is how do you now go to Vietnam without it being a fly in, race, fly out task as it's a street circuit which will make holding 2 races impossible.
Looking at the F1 calendar I can see more European races being required as the only places usable seem to be Europe and the Middle East..
The trick is to find a way of doing it that doesn’t result in hundreds more politicians and thousands of hangers-on. Yes, it would be good to see a constitutional convention, and I’d support a federal system whereby England doesn’t have an automatic overall majority at the federal level.
I take it you're in favour of ditching two tier local authorities then ?
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
That sounds terrible.
The pay is pretty damned good for such a dull game though.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Depends on the sort of investor one is or whom the jurisdiction wants to have. Maybe some places might be a little more scrupulous over some Russian or Arab money, for example.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
I think baseball is best watched with a kind expert to explain what is happening. It is very intricate in strategy and tactics and not obvious to the uninitiated. Basketball is a great sport to watch in person. Courtside you are remarkably close to the action and can easily appreciate the skill and speed without any great need to understand the finer points. Ditto ice hockey. Both are much better in person than on TV.
I grew up with it at school, and it can be quite subtle, but great to watch in person. American Football at High School level is too, at professional level the intermenable advertising breaks for TV are awful.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
I’ll add a note for NASCAR, which is totally nuts to watch live on the oval circuits. They’re going as fast as F1 cars and inches apart for laps at a time. And the smell of fuel is enough to make you high!
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Depends on the sort of investor one is or whom the jurisdiction wants to have. Maybe some places might be a little more scrupulous over some Russian or Arab money, for example.
Indeed. The recent report on London as a laundromat will have been viewed with interest by other authorities and will, I have no doubt, be used discreetly by some of them to suggest that trustworthiness can be found elsewhere. There are plenty of investors who value clean markets. After all if providers are not properly following the rules for dodgy clients how can you be sure they are following the rules properly about keeping your money safe?
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
I’ll add a note for NASCAR, which is totally nuts to watch live on the oval circuits. They’re going as fast as F1 cars and inches apart for laps at a time. And the smell of fuel is enough to make you high!
O/t I realise, but I wonder when FI and the other F's are going to be electric.
F1: looks unlikely we'll be visiting China this year.
Shame. I was looking forward to some world class moral hypocrisy.
But F1 is visiting Mugello and Portimao, which will be much more fun!
Indeed. Hoping that we'll get an Asian leg into the calendar as well with Japan, Malaysia and Korea at least.
That’s looking more and more unlikely, mostly for logistics reasons. They’re going to stay in Europe until well into October, then head to the Middle East.
Maybe they’ll let a few fans it at some point, he says while optimistically clutching his pair of hospitality tickets to the scheduled final event in Abu Dhabi...
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
Not nessecarily, it depends on how decisions are made in a Federal system. For example with a US style Senate, we could have equal numbers of Senators for each of the four nations. Another option would be to require a supermajority so that no item could pass without 3 of four assemblies voting it through.
Won't change the fact that England has such a massive imbalance of population. The 'powers' of that body would have be very carefully looked at.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Absolutely!
London is a global not European financial hub for a very, very good reason. European businesses that want money will want to trade with London and London will find a way to do that. Whatever the EU wants is secondary, the market will find a way.
It is worth remembering that US dollars were originally meant to be traded and under the control of the Federal Reserve, but the role that foreign especially British banks has in creating Eurodollars. The Federal Reserve has not been able to stop that nor does it even try to, it is beyond its remit. Now more trade is made in Eurodollars than in actual dollars. If you want to trade in dollars then London is a great place to do it.
If the USA hasn't stopped London from being a global hub for dollars it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU is going to be able to stop London in trading Euros. To follow the nomenclature we will trade in Euroeuros instead and move on ...
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Absolutely!
London is a global not European financial hub for a very, very good reason. European businesses that want money will want to trade with London and London will find a way to do that. Whatever the EU wants is secondary, the market will find a way.
It is worth remembering that US dollars were originally meant to be traded and under the control of the Federal Reserve, but the role that foreign especially British banks has in creating Eurodollars. The Federal Reserve has not been able to stop that nor does it even try to, it is beyond its remit. Now more trade is made in Eurodollars than in actual dollars. If you want to trade in dollars then London is a great place to do it.
If the USA hasn't stopped London from being a global hub for dollars it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU is going to be able to stop London in trading Euros. To follow the nomenclature we will trade in Euroeuros instead and move on ...
I think you'll find it was the Moscow Narodny Bank that invented Eurodollars.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
I’ll add a note for NASCAR, which is totally nuts to watch live on the oval circuits. They’re going as fast as F1 cars and inches apart for laps at a time. And the smell of fuel is enough to make you high!
O/t I realise, but I wonder when FI and the other F's are going to be electric.
There’s already a Formula E. they’re really slow and run out of juice after 100km.
When those cars are fasterand can do the 300km distance, then they’ll become F1 cars automatically - as they’ll be then at the peak of automotive technology.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Depends on the sort of investor one is or whom the jurisdiction wants to have. Maybe some places might be a little more scrupulous over some Russian or Arab money, for example.
Indeed. The recent report on London as a laundromat will have been viewed with interest by other authorities and will, I have no doubt, be used discreetly by some of them to suggest that trustworthiness can be found elsewhere. There are plenty of investors who value clean markets. After all if providers are not properly following the rules for dodgy clients how can you be sure they are following the rules properly about keeping your money safe?
If it's so easy please explain the mechanism?
Again, it's investors protecting themselves from state expropriation.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
The money is here and once it's no longer under ECJ jurisdiction it's definitely not going to go to somewhere that is.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
Absolutely!
London is a global not European financial hub for a very, very good reason. European businesses that want money will want to trade with London and London will find a way to do that. Whatever the EU wants is secondary, the market will find a way.
It is worth remembering that US dollars were originally meant to be traded and under the control of the Federal Reserve, but the role that foreign especially British banks has in creating Eurodollars. The Federal Reserve has not been able to stop that nor does it even try to, it is beyond its remit. Now more trade is made in Eurodollars than in actual dollars. If you want to trade in dollars then London is a great place to do it.
If the USA hasn't stopped London from being a global hub for dollars it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU is going to be able to stop London in trading Euros. To follow the nomenclature we will trade in Euroeuros instead and move on ...
I think you'll find it was the Moscow Narodny Bank that invented Eurodollars.
I didn't say we invented them I said the role British banks played in creating them. The Soviets were definitely involved but Midlands Bank (HSBC) are credited with being involved in the early days of them too.
British banks too are very involved in making them into what they are today. If the EU wants control over the Euro the same thing will happen too. Businesses want money, London has money, people will follow the money more than the edicts of politicians.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
No, you really don't.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
I would have thought Scotland wouldn't be happy to be seen as only equal to an English region such as SW or SE. I would prefer a federal UK but I think we are well past that now.
Wouldn't be a problem compared to the alternative.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
People have been predicting the death of square mile for ages. I'll believe it when it happens.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
Your Coulrophobia is showing, luv....
??
Ah, thank you Mr Mark, I hadn't come across that word before and looked it up (that can sometimes be dangerous). That is very good!
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.
I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"
I think makes sense. Keir is fixing an image as politically very different to Corbyn without yet changing policy much, through competence, tone and some appropriate gestures. No need to go on the front foot against Corbyn. If he does something expulsion worthy all the better but just wait and ease him and his cohorts out. Corbyn himself might never go but his followers will.
It is truly remarkable, considering we are told Corbyn is such a nice and humble man (he does seem like hed be a nice person to talk to) just how viscerally so many MPs disliked him or distrusted his leadership after knowing him for so long.
Yes.
The far left will at some stage overreach themselves again and provide an excuse to act. It took Long-Bailey just a couple of months to put Starmer in such a position where he was left no choice but to remove her from the Shadow Cabinet - so he was able to act without being seen to initiate the conflict. I am sure that there will be others who likewise just can't help digging a hole for themselves.
Those who clamour for Starmer to initiate a full blown internal civil war at this point in order to make a "gesture" overlook the fact that Starmer's excellent approval ratings show decisively that the public already views him as representing a decisive break from Corbyn. He is winning already and is seen as winning. The immediate task is to consolidate that (eg. in upcoming NEC elections and the Unite Gen Sec election) and be patient as the flux of membership resignations from disillusioned far left entryists takes its gradual toll on their position. Patience is needed, not a gamble that could backfire. Labour's image itself will take longer to turn around but four years will be more than enough to do that.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
If European companies are cut off from finance then it's Europe that will suffer more than the City.
Follow the money. London will survive and thrive, money finds a way.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
A non-trivial number of voters voted Labour *despite* Corbyn over Brexit. Talking to some of them, they seemed to be hoping for a hung parliament, run by Remainers that would somehow "vanish" Brexit.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Please stop saying this, it makes you look ridiculous.
They achieved a deal that May had got and Boris rejected at the time.
I am highly dubious about this thesis, simply because Corbyn appeared so teflon-coated in 2017. There is the real possibility of a "never really liked him anyway" effect whereby if you take against someone ideologically, as a *secondary* effect you also decide he is a complete cult, or stop pretending not to notice that he is a complete cult.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
A non-trivial number of voters voted Labour *despite* Corbyn over Brexit. Talking to some of them, they seemed to be hoping for a hung parliament, run by Remainers that would somehow "vanish" Brexit.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
Over the past few elections I've moved from LibDem to Labour. TBH, I don't see me moving back soon. Might go Green in the locals, though. I suppose if there was a better chance of Rejoining with a strong LibDem element in Parliament I might, but in this constituency it's probably more important to shift Priti Patel. Especially in the EU context.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
A non-trivial number of voters voted Labour *despite* Corbyn over Brexit. Talking to some of them, they seemed to be hoping for a hung parliament, run by Remainers that would somehow "vanish" Brexit.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
Brexit will only be an issue at the next election if it has been an economic car crash in between time. Although I personally think Brexit was totally self defeating and pointless, I very much hope for the sake of the country that it somehow is fudged to reduce its impact, even though the thought of the disingenuous Clown having to own a policy that he has pretended to believe in seems a little appealling.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
A non-trivial number of voters voted Labour *despite* Corbyn over Brexit. Talking to some of them, they seemed to be hoping for a hung parliament, run by Remainers that would somehow "vanish" Brexit.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
Starmer has been shrewd in insisting that Brexit is a fait accompli. That won't lose him any support - all Remainers, whether they are Labour supporters or not, accept that the damage is profound but irrevocable - and it also means that he won't be bogged down by any 'Defying the Will of the People' crap. He's clearing the various decks pretty well.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Please stop saying this, it makes you look ridiculous.
They achieved a deal that May had got and Boris rejected at the time.
I'll stop saying it when it stops being true.
I keeping anyone to show me how Stormont controlled May's deal like how Stormont controls Boris's but answer comes there none.
As Topping loves to say the UK was always sovereign in the EU as we could always choose to leave. By the same logic NI is sovereign in Boris's deal as Stormont can vote to leave it. Not the case in the backstop.
Demonstrate otherwise and I promise I will never mention it again.
I’ll add a note for NASCAR, which is totally nuts to watch live on the oval circuits. They’re going as fast as F1 cars and inches apart for laps at a time. And the smell of fuel is enough to make you high!
NASCAR is fantasic in a stadium (the road courses are meh). I can recommend a night race at the Chicagoland Raceway.
I've also done the NASCAR driving experience at Fontana. The cars are incredibly difficult to drive with immense steering forces. I went full Cole Trickle and got black flagged for dangerous undertaking.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
People have been predicting the death of square mile for ages. I'll believe it when it happens.
I don't think it's going to die any time soon but for non-EU firms looking to enter the market then they will look at the regulatory environment in the round. They might be tempted to base themselves in the EU (as well) whereas previously they would have concentrated everything in London. So not a death but a diminution.
Plus for those people who have relocated or established EU branches, and plenty have, from exchanges to IBs, that is wealth that is not staying in London.
Plus, oh and not related to Brexit but if we are going to see an influx of PRC firms spreading their wings then there may be some administrative restrictions on basing themselves in London. Which doesn't help.
Good header topic @MikeSmithson . Gratifying for those of us that have been saying all along that this was not an endorsement of Boris Johnson, but a rejection of someone even worse. What a choice it was:Clown or Marxist thicko. The electorate chose the Clown out of fear of the Marxist thicko.
A non-trivial number of voters voted Labour *despite* Corbyn over Brexit. Talking to some of them, they seemed to be hoping for a hung parliament, run by Remainers that would somehow "vanish" Brexit.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
Over the past few elections I've moved from LibDem to Labour. TBH, I don't see me moving back soon. Might go Green in the locals, though. I suppose if there was a better chance of Rejoining with a strong LibDem element in Parliament I might, but in this constituency it's probably more important to shift Priti Patel. Especially in the EU context.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Right, but what was the result? The two deals were widely reported to be essentially the same, except for Northern Ireland, where depending on your taste; Boris caved, or came up with an inspired creative solution. Either way, the EU didn't give in to tough talk.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
If European companies are cut off from finance then it's Europe that will suffer more than the City.
Follow the money. London will survive and thrive, money finds a way.
Fractionally lower costs per transaction is what drives the volume of business to London, and those costs are lower because of the depth of the markets and greater liquidity, thus we have an amplifying feedback loop creating a natural monopoly in London within the GMT time zone. The French and others may hanker after some of this business but frankly it's a non-starter even if they misguidedly erect some kind of barriers after Brexit - they only damage their own businesses and economy by doing so.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
I actually think it's a fair point. However, it works both ways. That some people think it's acceptable to put a man in a women's prison, is for me, beyond mental.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
People have been predicting the death of square mile for ages. I'll believe it when it happens.
I don't think it's going to die any time soon but for non-EU firms looking to enter the market then they will look at the regulatory environment in the round. They might be tempted to base themselves in the EU (as well) whereas previously they would have concentrated everything in London. So not a death but a diminution.
Plus for those people who have relocated or established EU branches, and plenty have, from exchanges to IBs, that is wealth that is not staying in London.
Plus, oh and not related to Brexit but if we are going to see an influx of PRC firms spreading their wings then there may be some administrative restrictions on basing themselves in London. Which doesn't help.
So far there isn't much evidence, again using my own company as an example, we've committed to London for the long term as have almost all of our Asian peers. Our clients want their money in London. European banks are the interesting case because there is huge political pressure for them to move back, but massive shareholder pressure for them to stay in London. The Americans seem happy to split between London and Dublin for now but that feels choreographed. If anything I'd say that the virus is a much bigger threat to the City than Brexit, it could lead to a mass decentralising of services from London to all over the world and while the companies will be based in London for regulatory reasons the employees (and therefore tax) will be all over the world rather than concentrated in a single location in the UK.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
WHO has recommended that in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Right, but what was the result? The two deals were widely reported to be essentially the same, except for Northern Ireland, where depending on your taste; Boris caved, or came up with an inspired creative solution. Either way, the EU didn't give in to tough talk.
I think you're being taken in by theatre.
The EU gave Stormont something that they had insisted throughout was impossible: a unilateral exit.
Remember the line "a backstop with an exit is not a backstop".
Finding a compromise often is about finding creative solutions all parties can live with. It's not about throwing everything out.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
And great legs too. Strong. Good definition.
The legs looked distinctly shaky in that Baxters Foods photo yesterday.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote.
Hmm. She has said far crazier things, and clearly in this case doesn't mean something so extreme that Morgan's reaction is totally justified, but I don't really think her clarification completely sells her point, and still leaves itself open for criticism. I'd think saying certain viewpoints are so marginal, extreme or fundamentally wronf that they are worth very little debate by the majority would be less contentious than 'creating debate' about fundamental issues being a hostile act. Whilst all but the very worst agree on some matters, there is too much disagreement around some issues others regard as fundamental to simply declare 'debating' those fundamentals hostile.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Many people thought there wasn't a chance in hell of Corbyn winning, that May was guaranteed a majority probably a landslide, so voted Labour despite Corbyn to contain May. Problem is millions thought the same thing so Corbyn came close.
If Corbyn had been taken seriously in 2017 I think the result would have been different.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
He's on his own in a soundproof cubicle and needs to be clear in the radio microphone?
Oh I’m not saying he should be wearing a mask! I mean the leap he takes from people refusing to wear them being those who think rich people should pay less tax! By the end of it I wasn’t sure he was ever talking about masks in the first place
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
Jesus. Climb off his dick, other people might want a go.
Comments
Edit: sorry, onlyjust seeen Foxy'spost a little below.
Would you want to be an investor in a jurisdiction where "the greater good" has been used to override basically everything? I know I wouldn't.
So what if the Federal Parliament is much diminished? That's what federalism is about.
As for one bit being 10x bigger . . . Yes it is. Nothing to be done about it, accept it. England is 10x bigger. No splitting England up is not the solution.
Looking at the F1 calendar I can see more European races being required as the only places usable seem to be Europe and the Middle East..
Horse, if it aggravates you there's no need to trouble yourself replying to my posts.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/07/23/labour-under-starmer-is-politically-competitive-again-says-blai/
Maybe they’ll let a few fans it at some point, he says while optimistically clutching his pair of hospitality tickets to the scheduled final event in Abu Dhabi...
London is a global not European financial hub for a very, very good reason. European businesses that want money will want to trade with London and London will find a way to do that. Whatever the EU wants is secondary, the market will find a way.
It is worth remembering that US dollars were originally meant to be traded and under the control of the Federal Reserve, but the role that foreign especially British banks has in creating Eurodollars. The Federal Reserve has not been able to stop that nor does it even try to, it is beyond its remit. Now more trade is made in Eurodollars than in actual dollars. If you want to trade in dollars then London is a great place to do it.
If the USA hasn't stopped London from being a global hub for dollars it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU is going to be able to stop London in trading Euros. To follow the nomenclature we will trade in Euroeuros instead and move on ...
When those cars are fasterand can do the 300km distance, then they’ll become F1 cars automatically - as they’ll be then at the peak of automotive technology.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Again, it's investors protecting themselves from state expropriation.
British banks too are very involved in making them into what they are today. If the EU wants control over the Euro the same thing will happen too. Businesses want money, London has money, people will follow the money more than the edicts of politicians.
The far left will at some stage overreach themselves again and provide an excuse to act. It took Long-Bailey just a couple of months to put Starmer in such a position where he was left no choice but to remove her from the Shadow Cabinet - so he was able to act without being seen to initiate the conflict. I am sure that there will be others who likewise just can't help digging a hole for themselves.
Those who clamour for Starmer to initiate a full blown internal civil war at this point in order to make a "gesture" overlook the fact that Starmer's excellent approval ratings show decisively that the public already views him as representing a decisive break from Corbyn. He is winning already and is seen as winning. The immediate task is to consolidate that (eg. in upcoming NEC elections and the Unite Gen Sec election) and be patient as the flux of membership resignations from disillusioned far left entryists takes its gradual toll on their position. Patience is needed, not a gamble that could backfire. Labour's image itself will take longer to turn around but four years will be more than enough to do that.
Follow the money. London will survive and thrive, money finds a way.
It will be interesting to see if Starmer can keep such votes.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 37% (+1)
LDEM: 6% (-3)
GRN: 2% (-1)
BREX: 2% (-1)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 17 - 19 Jul
Chgs. w/ 14 Jun
Britain Elects
@britainelects
·
Jul 19
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (+2)
LAB: 36% (-2)
LDEM: 6% (-)
GRN: 6% (+2)
via
@OpiniumResearch
, 15 - 17 Jul
Chgs. w/ 10 Jul
They achieved a deal that May had got and Boris rejected at the time.
"Mr Battery" has been consigned to the shelf.
I suppose if there was a better chance of Rejoining with a strong LibDem element in Parliament I might, but in this constituency it's probably more important to shift Priti Patel. Especially in the EU context.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017
"He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice
"Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
Britain Elects
@britainelects
·
Jul 10
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 46% (+1)
LAB: 36% (-1)
LDEM: 6% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-1)
BREX: 2% (-)
via
@YouGov
, 08 - 09 Jul
Chgs. w/ 28 Jun
I keeping anyone to show me how Stormont controlled May's deal like how Stormont controls Boris's but answer comes there none.
As Topping loves to say the UK was always sovereign in the EU as we could always choose to leave. By the same logic NI is sovereign in Boris's deal as Stormont can vote to leave it. Not the case in the backstop.
Demonstrate otherwise and I promise I will never mention it again.
I've also done the NASCAR driving experience at Fontana. The cars are incredibly difficult to drive with immense steering forces. I went full Cole Trickle and got black flagged for dangerous undertaking.
Plus for those people who have relocated or established EU branches, and plenty have, from exchanges to IBs, that is wealth that is not staying in London.
Plus, oh and not related to Brexit but if we are going to see an influx of PRC firms spreading their wings then there may be some administrative restrictions on basing themselves in London. Which doesn't help.
The two deals were widely reported to be essentially the same, except for Northern Ireland, where depending on your taste; Boris caved, or came up with an inspired creative solution. Either way, the EU didn't give in to tough talk.
I think you're being taken in by theatre.
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
No, OKC is fine, thanks.
https://gov.wales/chief-medical-officers-advice-on-face-masks-html
WHO has recommended that in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Which is exactly where we are at now.
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1286592554243424256?s=21
Remember the line "a backstop with an exit is not a backstop".
Finding a compromise often is about finding creative solutions all parties can live with. It's not about throwing everything out.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
If Corbyn had been taken seriously in 2017 I think the result would have been different.