politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The €60 billion question. The EU exit charge and what it means
Comments
-
The outcome of the 'negotiation' with the EU will depend on relative strength. A formula for this might look something like:
Negotiating position = strength of possible sanctions x value of possible concessions x negotiating competence
For the EU the calculation is simple as there is just one counter-party to evaluate. For the UK the calculation is highly complex as there are at least 27 counter-parties to aggregate in terms of how much they wish to avoid any sanction and how much they value any concession.
Of course, life will be easier if the EU acts as a single mind as they appear to want to. But will that really survive even the early exchanges? Will the UK want it to?
To wrap in another debate, the status of EU citizens in the UK has to be a significant factor in the calculations, especially for the Eastern EU countries.0 -
The burning question of the day afaics is did Peter from Putney emerge relatively unscathed from the boxing match?
The second more serious question is , given current Labour policies are risible... what policies can they put up when Mrs May has her tanks parked on Labour's lawn?0 -
"Alastair Meeks, who accurately predicted the outcome of the Article 50 case..."
Perhaps, but didn't he also predict a Remain victory?
0 -
While Corbyn is insitu, ones that focus on inter-generational divides.SquareRoot said:The burning question of the day afaics is did Peter from Putney emerge relatively unscathed from the boxing match?
The second more serious question is , given current Labour policies are risible... what policies can they put up when Mrs May has her tanks parked on Labour's lawn?
Pensioners have no intention of voting for him, so they can fund his policies.0 -
Robert Peston: "Everyone knows we can't turf them out (EU migrants) because the economy would implode if we did." It would certainly make life difficult for some businesses that are dependent upon low skilled migrants who are prepared to work for low wages, but I'm not sure the economy would implode.
Peston would be better off being honest and saying that we aren't going to turf people out because it would be politically unacceptable, just as it would be for the EU nations to kick out the Brits.0 -
It is certainly 'too early to say for sure'. It's also necessary to note that US liberals have been making precisely this criticism of national security surveillance powers for years... might a political consensus for reform one day result ?PlatoSaid said:I found this article pretty interesting re FISA and the changes made post 911.
The final sentence is the key point
"While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
Here's some more commentary from the other end of the political spectrum (including an amusing description of Louise Mensch):
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/04/the-conspiratorial-game-of-telephone-in-bannons-rag-that-made-left-right-and-potus-go-crazy/0 -
I had a hilarious conversation with an independent coffee shop owner a few years back - she was complaining about people coming in, ordering one coffee and spending the whole day running their business from their table - using WiFi, even demanding to plug their laptop/phone in to recharge.JosiasJessop said:The point of a well-run coffee shop, whether a Starbucks, Cafe Nero or an indy, is not the coffee. That is just a catalyst.
They are a social hub; a meeting place for those who do no wish to go to the pub (and generally with more friendly opening times as well). A place to go and meet friends and chat about politics, science, literature, or sport; in fact, anything and everything.
Just as they were three hundred years ago.
Hence the location, decor, and ambience perhaps matter more than the coffee. Heck, from a quick straw poll of the missus and myself, the food or snacks available matter more than the coffee.
When I suggested that she copy the business plan of Edward Lloyd.. it was as if a lightbulb lit up. I haven't been back there in a while - but she was already renting numbered tables, and was planning to install power sockets per table...0 -
Ed Balls says May should call a snap election.0
-
What Switzerland does, is (in effect) to limit immigration in areas where there are no labour shortages. The certificates to work as hairdressers etc are just the mechanism.MaxPB said:
Switzerland also has a closed labour market to unskilled workers. Which immigrant is going to do a three year equivalency certificate to work as a hairdresser?FF43 said:
We are talking about immigration. Switzerland has a lot of immigration. It's either rich because of that immigration or rich despite it.Alanbrooke said:
noFF43 said:
Neither jobs nor supply are fixed. It's not my area, but the people who study this reckon each immigrant creates almost one new job thanks to his contribution to the economy. Marginally negative. However,immigrants also tend to be underpaid for their skill level, which means there are more higher paid jobs (supervisors, permanent rather than temporary staff etc) than there would otherwise be. Overall it's a wash, but the better paid benefit slightly from immigration while the lower paid have slightly fewer job opportunities than they would otherwise have.Alanbrooke said:
so if there are fewer jobs why do we need so much immigration ?
it's one of the huge inconsistencies in the Remainers arguments.
Likewise why are those who spent years demanding a living wage complaining when wages rise ?
There are significant benefits to immigration for public finances and those that are depending on the state for pensions, benefits and healthcare however.
if you ask me would I rather be a country with a smaller but richer population ( Switzerland )
or a bigger but less well off one ( USA) Im going for Switzerland0 -
Mr. 86, Balls is just trying to ramp up speculation so no election appears to be a climb down (a dramatic re-enactment of Brown's daftness).0
-
No more than the UK does currently, as both are members of the EU/EEA. However the discussion was about whether immigration boosts or depresses job opportunities and wages for the indigenous population.Alanbrooke said:
it controls its immigration , it doesnt just import people for the sake of it.FF43 said:
We are talking about immigration. Switzerland has a lot of immigration. It's either rich because of that immigration or rich despite it.Alanbrooke said:
noFF43 said:
Neither jobs nor supply are fixed. It's not my area, but the people who study this reckon each immigrant creates almost one new job thanks to his contribution to the economy. Marginally negative. However,immigrants also tend to be underpaid for their skill level, which means there are more higher paid jobs (supervisors, permanent rather than temporary staff etc) than there would otherwise be. Overall it's a wash, but the better paid benefit slightly from immigration while the lower paid have slightly fewer job opportunities than they would otherwise have.Alanbrooke said:
so if there are fewer jobs why do we need so much immigration ?
it's one of the huge inconsistencies in the Remainers arguments.
Likewise why are those who spent years demanding a living wage complaining when wages rise ?
There are significant benefits to immigration for public finances and those that are depending on the state for pensions, benefits and healthcare however.
if you ask me would I rather be a country with a smaller but richer population ( Switzerland )
or a bigger but less well off one ( USA) Im going for Switzerland
Edit Switzerland controls immigration less than we do because it's a member off Schengen0 -
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Define club and marriage as it relates to UK and EU, give us an even bigger laugh.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
0 -
He was almost right.MarkHopkins said:
"Alastair Meeks, who accurately predicted the outcome of the Article 50 case..."
Perhaps, but didn't he also predict a Remain victory?0 -
If coffee connoisseurs are so able to distinguish hand-made from machine-made coffee (I don't drink the stuff so have no idea!) and keen to pay a premium for it, then being a barista should be regarded as skilled, or at least more-than-semi-skilled, work, and paid accordingly. There are other examples of skilled, specialist work in the food and drink sector for which recruitment from overseas is accepted.nielh said:
The coffee is still important. Has to be up to a certain standard. I am unconvinced by the standard of automated machines to date. The costa coffee machines at BP garages are ok but for the barista is an important art and skill and unlikely to be automated . Barista recruitment will be hit hard by Brexit.
That there has been so much fretting about barista recruitment post-Brexit (not referring to you, just a general point) does reveal a certain set of priorities among the chattering classes. For me, I think wages are more important. If baristas have to paid more to sort out recruitment and retention, I see that as a big plus, not a minus. Though admittedly I'm not the one paying for the coffee.
(Incidentally, if the equation is "fewer jobs in the sector, but regarded as higher skilled and better paid", then even that counts as progress. In fact it is probably the most common way in which progress is made. Comparatively rare for a low-skill low-pay sector to become high-skill high-pay without the numbers working falling. But there are other jobs elsewhere in the economy.)0 -
That's a great story. Good luck to her.Malmesbury said:
I had a hilarious conversation with an independent coffee shop owner a few years back - she was complaining about people coming in, ordering one coffee and spending the whole day running their business from their table - using WiFi, even demanding to plug their laptop/phone in to recharge.JosiasJessop said:The point of a well-run coffee shop, whether a Starbucks, Cafe Nero or an indy, is not the coffee. That is just a catalyst.
They are a social hub; a meeting place for those who do no wish to go to the pub (and generally with more friendly opening times as well). A place to go and meet friends and chat about politics, science, literature, or sport; in fact, anything and everything.
Just as they were three hundred years ago.
Hence the location, decor, and ambience perhaps matter more than the coffee. Heck, from a quick straw poll of the missus and myself, the food or snacks available matter more than the coffee.
When I suggested that she copy the business plan of Edward Lloyd.. it was as if a lightbulb lit up. I haven't been back there in a while - but she was already renting numbered tables, and was planning to install power sockets per table...
I once had a job interview in the McDonalds on Oxford Street, opposite TCR station. I went to work for Acorn instead, who at least had some offices!0 -
Well at least that's one thing he has in common with 90% of PB Brexiteers.MarkHopkins said:
"Alastair Meeks, who accurately predicted the outcome of the Article 50 case..."
Perhaps, but didn't he also predict a Remain victory?0 -
So what did you think of Wenger putting Sanchez on the bench last night?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
In the UK, it's 50:50 franchise and company owned. I think globally there are slightly more franchises than company ownedtimmo said:
I think youll find all Mcdonalds are fanchises so they are in effect in competition with each other but with price ceilings for products.SouthamObserver said:
McDonald's has a price ceiling, I agree. So it is likely to close outlets to reduce costs, rather than pass on any wages increases. Those who work in high end restaurants will also lose their jobs when they close, ditto hotels. High streets across the UK are already full of boarded up outlets and low rent charity shops. We'll just see more of these. As more people look for work, salaries will go down, not up. What Brexit is likely to do is actually increase inequality and entrench the advantages enjoyed by the better off.MaxPB said:
Tbh, McDonald's have a price ceiling as well enforced by copious independent chicken and burger shops as well as global competition. It's the restaurants that the likes of you or I would visit that will become more expensive or have to close down unprofitable outlets.SouthamObserver said:I can't remember the last time I had a McDonald's. I think you'll find the demographics of fast food consumption are concentrated at the poorer end of the scale. And it's not just well off members of the middle class that go to Starbucks. An alternative to paying higher wages across the board, of course, is to employ fewer people and to close outlets. With high employment rates, we are almost certain to see that happen, with smaller businesses most affected. I am all for people getting higher wages, just as I am for higher taxes for the better off. I can afford both. I am lucky.
Follow that thought through to the logical end, we got to businesses closing. What does that do? It drives rents down which means new businesses open with a lower fixed cost base and that pushes employment up again. When wages rise, ultimately it's the rentier classes that pay for it, which is why most of them fought so hard for remain. Their unlimited pool of labour being closed off is going to hurt their yields quite badly.
Brexit is going to end up achieving what Labour stand for, a more equal society. Hopefully it will also help to achieve a society in which one can work hard and be rewarded as well.
But it is certainly not all.0 -
Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.
0 -
Mandarin Oriental hotel would close for sure, on TV the other night about "A very British Hotel" it showed that all staff are from outside the UK. Inhouse lundry manager said they never ever got any British applicant for job vacancies. I was gobsmacked , the only English person in staff was guy in charge of Bellboys.tlg86 said:Robert Peston: "Everyone knows we can't turf them out (EU migrants) because the economy would implode if we did." It would certainly make life difficult for some businesses that are dependent upon low skilled migrants who are prepared to work for low wages, but I'm not sure the economy would implode.
Peston would be better off being honest and saying that we aren't going to turf people out because it would be politically unacceptable, just as it would be for the EU nations to kick out the Brits.0 -
I made that £300 per head, which sounds like a number that would be palatable written in a newspaper :-).NickPalmer said:
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.MarqueeMark said:
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
"The equivalent of one night in a London Hotel each, or two years of the TV License, and we escape from the clutches of Brussels."
If I was after clarity I think I would talk in terms of payback period.0 -
0
-
Actually I don't think it was that bad a decision. He tends to fade in the second half so I thought if we could get to half time at 0-0 we could then bring him on.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what did you think of Wenger putting Sanchez on the bench last night?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
What annoyed me more was taking Giroud off. He might not be the best forward in the league, but at least he gives defenders something to think about.
Unfortunately we don't have a very good midfield at the moment. Granit Xhaka is possibly the worst pound for pound signing we've every made and Coquelin isn't having a great time at the moment. We have missed Cazorla badly these last two seasons.
That said, had the referee done his job properly and sent of Emre Can, we might have nicked a point.0 -
I think you are underestimating in fact, PB is not a barometer of teh country, more a majority "small right wing" over privileged bunch of self interested whingers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.0 -
-
I thought Giroud had an injury, he was taking a painkiller or two during the match, Wellbeck's substitution I couldn't understandtlg86 said:
Actually I don't think it was that bad a decision. He tends to fade in the second half so I thought if we could get to half time at 0-0 we could then bring him on.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what did you think of Wenger putting Sanchez on the bench last night?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
What annoyed me more was taking Giroud off. He might not be the best forward in the league, but at least he gives defenders something to think about.
Unfortunately we don't have a very good midfield at the moment. Granit Xhaka is possibly the worst pound for pound signing we've every made and Coquelin isn't having a great time at the moment. We have missed Cazorla badly these last two seasons.
That said, had the referee done his job properly and sent of Emre Can, we might have nicked a point.
Can was fortunate that Matip also fouled him. I think it was Ian Wright who said he understood why the ref didn't send him off.
Xhaka does look shite but Mustafi probably looked like a worse signing.0 -
We have been regaled for years now with tales of unemployment, fake employment, under employment, faux self employment along with the perils of the 'gig' economy and zero hours contracts.tlg86 said:Robert Peston: "Everyone knows we can't turf them out (EU migrants) because the economy would implode if we did." It would certainly make life difficult for some businesses that are dependent upon low skilled migrants who are prepared to work for low wages, but I'm not sure the economy would implode.
Peston would be better off being honest and saying that we aren't going to turf people out because it would be politically unacceptable, just as it would be for the EU nations to kick out the Brits.
I guess we'd find out how real these things are.
We voted Leave nine months ago - yet employment is up 250,000 since, the employment rate has risen 0.2%, job vacancies remain steady at 750,000 and salaries (gross and net) are rising faster than prices.0 -
What or who was the "someone/something else"?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
The Lizard men?0 -
This is true, but on this issue they're in the same place as most of the voters.malcolmg said:
I think you are underestimating in fact, PB is not a barometer of teh country, more a majority "small right wing" over privileged bunch of self interested whingers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.0 -
I didn't notice that Giroud was injured but that might explain it. I think they are being careful with Wellbeck given he's coming back from a second bad injury. I'd have also brought on Ramsey rather than Walcott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought Giroud had an injury, he was taking a painkiller or two during the match, Wellbeck's substitution I couldn't understandtlg86 said:
Actually I don't think it was that bad a decision. He tends to fade in the second half so I thought if we could get to half time at 0-0 we could then bring him on.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what did you think of Wenger putting Sanchez on the bench last night?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
What annoyed me more was taking Giroud off. He might not be the best forward in the league, but at least he gives defenders something to think about.
Unfortunately we don't have a very good midfield at the moment. Granit Xhaka is possibly the worst pound for pound signing we've every made and Coquelin isn't having a great time at the moment. We have missed Cazorla badly these last two seasons.
That said, had the referee done his job properly and sent of Emre Can, we might have nicked a point.
Can was fortunate that Matip also fouled him. I think it was Ian Wright who said he understood why the ref didn't send him off.
Xhaka does look shite but Mustafi probably looked like a worse signing.
I'm not a fan of Mustafi either. The ref should have booked one of Can or Matip. That he booked neither was a complete bottle job. This is another reason against video replays. To my mind that was a nailed on second yellow card, but I bet a video ref would have sided with the on field ref.0 -
One of the first things I realised after leaving university is that there is no equivalence between success and intelligence.malcolmg said:
I think you are underestimating in fact, PB is not a barometer of teh country, more a majority "small right wing" over privileged bunch of self interested whingers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.0 -
"Less than two weeks away from her triggering Article 50, our politicians may be in for a very rude awakening. It could be a catastrophe beyond imagining."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/mps-cant-see-catastrophe-brexit-horizon/0 -
I'm still undecided about video replays in football.tlg86 said:
I didn't notice that Giroud was injured but that might explain it. I think they are being careful with Wellbeck given he's coming back from a second bad injury. I'd have also brought on Ramsey rather than Walcott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought Giroud had an injury, he was taking a painkiller or two during the match, Wellbeck's substitution I couldn't understandtlg86 said:
Actually I don't think it was that bad a decision. He tends to fade in the second half so I thought if we could get to half time at 0-0 we could then bring him on.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what did you think of Wenger putting Sanchez on the bench last night?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
What annoyed me more was taking Giroud off. He might not be the best forward in the league, but at least he gives defenders something to think about.
Unfortunately we don't have a very good midfield at the moment. Granit Xhaka is possibly the worst pound for pound signing we've every made and Coquelin isn't having a great time at the moment. We have missed Cazorla badly these last two seasons.
That said, had the referee done his job properly and sent of Emre Can, we might have nicked a point.
Can was fortunate that Matip also fouled him. I think it was Ian Wright who said he understood why the ref didn't send him off.
Xhaka does look shite but Mustafi probably looked like a worse signing.
I'm not a fan of Mustafi either. The ref should have booked one of Can or Matip. That he booked neither was a complete bottle job. This is another reason against video replays. To my mind that was a nailed on second yellow card, but I bet a video ref would have sided with the on field ref.0 -
Mr. Glenn, what time is Fillon's little speech due? [Assuming he can turn up on time...].0
-
I firmly believe that if people think there's a problem there is a problem. This is a politics forum, and politics is about perceptions. People think there is a problem with too much immigration and therefore vote to leave the EU in sufficient numbers that the motion is carried.
It gets messy when you try to deal with the problem as people think it is, rather than what it actually is. Immigration has some advantages for the UK: some of it is needed to plug labour shortages; it helps boost public finances that pay for all that nice welfare we enjoy; trade arrangements with other countries depend on easier immigration - the EU particularly, but also India, Australia and the US with the last three being additional to the immigration we had before.
The government is in a bind. If it deals with the perceived problem it substitutes it with actual problems. Or it doesn't deal with the perceived problem and disappoints those that hold it.0 -
Christopher HopeVerified account
@christopherhope
Manchester Gorton is not a safe seat, says Rebecca Long-Bailey @pestononsunday0 -
It's somewhat irrational to bring in people to sweep mess up the floor if you have set up a welfare system in which the state tops up such low pay as a kind of subsidy to low-pay employers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.
That doesn't mean I want migrants to be treated like dirt. I'd rather migrants weren't living in awful conditions, several to a room, doing awful jobs and getting treated like dirt. Much better if they came here to do good work and got good pay - both for them, and for those of us already here. If that means some business models in the UK become uneconomic because they can't afford to pay folk at a reasonable rate, then perhaps those are just jobs that we have to accept are going to go. If we allowed migrants (and it would pretty much have to be migrants) to do sweatshop textile work at £2/hr we could continue to compete with Bangladesh at that game, for instance - and we could if we wanted to. But we haven't, and the country is the better for it.0 -
Ben Bradshaw:
"no Labour seat is safe. Not a single one.”0 -
Should be from 2pm UK time.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Glenn, what time is Fillon's little speech due? [Assuming he can turn up on time...].
0 -
Mr. Glenn, cheers.0
-
Is he dropping out? Seems to be a few rumours that he will.williamglenn said:
Should be from 2pm UK time.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Glenn, what time is Fillon's little speech due? [Assuming he can turn up on time...].
0 -
actually she has a point. the idea of safe seats nowadays is fading. If Labour can lose all of Glasgow then is any seat really safe?rottenborough said:Christopher HopeVerified account
@christopherhope
Manchester Gorton is not a safe seat, says Rebecca Long-Bailey @pestononsunday0 -
Corrected that for you.nunu said:
actually she has a point. the idea of safe Labour seats nowadays is fading. If Labour can lose all of Glasgow then is any seat really safe?rottenborough said:Christopher HopeVerified account
@christopherhope
Manchester Gorton is not a safe seat, says Rebecca Long-Bailey @pestononsunday0 -
Mr. Nunu, bit different, though, as Labour doesn't face an SNP type threat in England. If it did, they'd be screwed.
Mr. Borough, indeed, although Juppe's odds have lengthened a smidgen and on Ladbrokes FIllon's have fallen from 17 to 13.0 -
Some things, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum are undeniable. If you flood the market with cheap labour wages get compressed, blue collar workers are far more willing to accept this than pretendy lefties in London.0
-
Yes, as a former member of the Labour Party I would be happy to offer my campaigning resources to the LDs in Islington North.rottenborough said:Ben Bradshaw:
"no Labour seat is safe. Not a single one.”0 -
The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.0
-
It is interesting that the current government policy on the minimum wage is methodically eliminating low end jobs. In retail, the low end shop floor jobs are going - when you walk into a clothes store, you may or may not realise that half the staff there are zero skill. Try asking a question - they have to find someone. They are there to "bulk out" the ones on higher pay. The retail companies are getting rid of the bottom end positions - they are simply not worth the minimum wage in terms of return on the cost of employment.MyBurningEars said:
It's somewhat irrational to bring in people to sweep mess up the floor if you have set up a welfare system in which the state tops up such low pay as a kind of subsidy to low-pay employers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.
That doesn't mean I want migrants to be treated like dirt. I'd rather migrants weren't living in awful conditions, several to a room, doing awful jobs and getting treated like dirt. Much better if they came here to do good work and got good pay - both for them, and for those of us already here. If that means some business models in the UK become uneconomic because they can't afford to pay folk at a reasonable rate, then perhaps those are just jobs that we have to accept are going to go. If we allowed migrants (and it would pretty much have to be migrants) to do sweatshop textile work at £2/hr we could continue to compete with Bangladesh at that game, for instance - and we could if we wanted to. But we haven't, and the country is the better for it.0 -
Sunday and spurs are playing. As are the English cricket team.
Heads for the bunker....0 -
The funny thing is that you have left wing people decrying policies that support wages - the Australia immigration system was is a combination of removing the racism of the White Australia policy plus union demands to protect wages by not allowing employers to import cheap labour to the point of collapsing the market.freetochoose said:Some things, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum are undeniable. If you flood the market with cheap labour wages get compressed, blue collar workers are far more willing to accept this than pretendy lefties in London.
The Swiss system is similarly rooted in the left/unions wishing to protect wages.0 -
One thing is certain. This British government or any other for that matter cannot be seen to be paying such a large divorce settlement. Not only have the people not been prepared for it, they have actually been hinted that it will be all plain sailing.
This means no Brexit deal on departure and interminable litigation. The consequences for British exporters [ and importers ] and hence the rest of the economy is serious.
Gradually, industry is beginning to absorb this. Confidence is slowly coming down. The fact that it went up was entirely due to the massive devaluation of the pound. We cannot go on devaluing forever.
The Financial sector and the motor industry will take a big hit.0 -
It is a rule of human psychology that those who are most vocally opinionated on a subject often find it hardest to understand that they haven’t a clue what they are talking about,rottenborough said:"Less than two weeks away from her triggering Article 50, our politicians may be in for a very rude awakening. It could be a catastrophe beyond imagining."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/mps-cant-see-catastrophe-brexit-horizon/
Indeed, Mr Booker, indeed.0 -
Ahh.. now he has the perfect excuse to cling on again!williamglenn said:The heavens are not in Fillon's camp.
https://twitter.com/politiquonscom/status/838322219243700225
"The people would have come out to support me, had it not been for the terrible weather!"0 -
Plain wrong. No one who has thought about it for two seconds could possibly think there would not be big numbers in the settlement agreement. And the more expensive getting out is, the more expensive that implies that staying in would be.surbiton said:One thing is certain. This British government or any other for that matter cannot be seen to be paying such a large divorce settlement. Not only have the people not been prepared for it, they have actually been hinted that it will be all plain sailing.
This means no Brexit deal on departure and interminable litigation. The consequences for British exporters [ and importers ] and hence the rest of the economy is serious.
Gradually, industry is beginning to absorb this. Confidence is slowly coming down. The fact that it went up was entirely due to the massive devaluation of the pound. We cannot go on devaluing forever.
The Financial sector and the motor industry will take a big hit.0 -
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this but I think you may have added a couple of zeros to the cost per head...NickPalmer said:
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.MarqueeMark said:
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
.0 -
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
Hammond promises to turn around and fight if the EU back him into a corner.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/05/philip-hammond-vows-uk-will-fight-back-if-it-gets-bad-brexit-deal-article-500 -
And why notwilliamglenn said:Hammond promises to turn around and fight if the EU back him into a corner.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/05/philip-hammond-vows-uk-will-fight-back-if-it-gets-bad-brexit-deal-article-500 -
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
I think LibDems are only ones with a chance in that seat.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
Otherwise known as the "Shami factor".BudG said:
Ahh.. now he has the perfect excuse to cling on again!williamglenn said:The heavens are not in Fillon's camp.
https://twitter.com/politiquonscom/status/838322219243700225
"The people would have come out to support me, had it not been for the terrible weather!"0 -
It was not like that when it started but it has turned out that way.malcolmg said:
I think you are underestimating in fact, PB is not a barometer of teh country, more a majority "small right wing" over privileged bunch of self interested whingers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.0 -
£20bn is indeed slightly over £300 per head. However, per taxpayer it is more like £650 per head. Of course, £60bn is three times as much !MattW said:
I made that £300 per head, which sounds like a number that would be palatable written in a newspaper :-).NickPalmer said:
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.MarqueeMark said:
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
"The equivalent of one night in a London Hotel each, or two years of the TV License, and we escape from the clutches of Brussels."
If I was after clarity I think I would talk in terms of payback period.
Affordable ? How much did people in western Germany pay for re-unification and for how long ?0 -
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
Intrigued "the Conservatives" wasn't an optionrottenborough said:
What or who was the "someone/something else"?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
The Lizard men?0 -
Recidivist said:
Second time I have been second.
Recidivist said:Second time I have been second.
Recidivist said:Second time I have been second.
Is it? I would have thought that losing your job because your company has a lost sales in Europe would be more galvanising.CD13 said:An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.0 -
Frankly, it has been taken over by the loud alt-right of this country. However, few there are.Yorkcity said:
It was not like that when it started but it has turned out that way.malcolmg said:
I think you are underestimating in fact, PB is not a barometer of teh country, more a majority "small right wing" over privileged bunch of self interested whingers.nielh said:Whenever post Brexit immigration is discussed on this website it makes for very interesting reading. People assume that because they have good jobs and high salaries (and often independent wealth) they will be unaffected by Brexit and will just be able to live /work / retire wherever they want. Everythings fine then, fuck the other 90% of the UK who aren't so fortunate. Similarly it is also fine to view immigration purely in terms of economic self interest, ie: bring the right people in (people like 'us'), and any migrant labour bought in to sweep their shit off the floor must be conditional upon having no rights, no access to the state, and basically must live with the threat of being deported at a moments notice. And this is all ok, because in the interest of some undefined racial group (the English) to address the hardship and suffering they suffered whilst being in the EU for all those years against their democratic will.
I am exaggerating slightly, but that seems to be the general jist of the position of PB leavers, who I hope for their own sake never find themselves in a position of hardship when living in a foreign country.0 -
There will be a deal. That implies there will be payment. As RCS has discussed it comes down to how that payment is shaped. The risk is that the UK government wastes limited time and political capital on this instead of getting a better settlement. This isn't poker or bridge where the game finishes on the final turn. The EU is still there; we're still there. We will have a relationship of some kind. It was stupid to have a referendum that rejected one relationship without considering the alternative or even knowing what relationship we want. But it won't be no deal.surbiton said:One thing is certain. This British government or any other for that matter cannot be seen to be paying such a large divorce settlement. Not only have the people not been prepared for it, they have actually been hinted that it will be all plain sailing.
This means no Brexit deal on departure and interminable litigation. The consequences for British exporters [ and importers ] and hence the rest of the economy is serious.
Gradually, industry is beginning to absorb this. Confidence is slowly coming down. The fact that it went up was entirely due to the massive devaluation of the pound. We cannot go on devaluing forever.
The Financial sector and the motor industry will take a big hit.0 -
She must still be in shock from that Salford by-election....rottenborough said:Christopher HopeVerified account
@christopherhope
Manchester Gorton is not a safe seat, says Rebecca Long-Bailey @pestononsunday0 -
Nor ham-fisted playing of the NHS card. "Babies will die!!!!"Charles said:
Probably but fortunately I don't live there...JackW said:
Clearly it's rather squalid in the NW10 backwaters ....Charles said:Charles said:
I drink instant - saves me £4 per day, £1,000 per yearJackW said:
You'll probably survive. The NHS is pretty good with emergency heart surgery but a hike in the price of coffee will be terminal for the latte classes.Charles said:Your morning coffee will probably be more expensive.
My heart bleeds for you
Per working day.JackW said:
I make that £1,460 .... you Tories and budget figures ....Charles said:
I drink instant - saves me £4 per day, £1,000 per yearJackW said:
You'll probably survive. The NHS is pretty good with emergency heart surgery but a hike in the price of coffee will be terminal for the latte classes.Charles said:Your morning coffee will probably be more expensive.
My heart bleeds for you
I drink Dunkin'Donuts at home
Intrigued "the Conservatives" wasn't an optionrottenborough said:
What or who was the "someone/something else"?tlg86 said:
The media! FFS, what more did they want the local rag and the BBC to do?TheScreamingEagles said:
The Lizard men?0 -
The Lib Dems have a very good chance of winning Gorton and they should unless Balls is the candidate.rottenborough said:
I think LibDems are only ones with a chance in that seat.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
I know - just being a bit tongue in cheekrottenborough said:
I think LibDems are only ones with a chance in that seat.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
I suppose history proves that even dead sheep can have their moment.williamglenn said:Hammond promises to turn around and fight if the EU back him into a corner.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/05/philip-hammond-vows-uk-will-fight-back-if-it-gets-bad-brexit-deal-article-500 -
The jury's out on the latter. The British people will still be here; the British state may not be.FF43 said:The EU is still there; we're still there.
0 -
What happened when the Soviet Union broke up?williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.
0 -
Balls has too much to worry about with Norwich FC at the moment.surbiton said:
The Lib Dems have a very good chance of winning Gorton and they should unless Balls is the candidate.rottenborough said:
I think LibDems are only ones with a chance in that seat.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
Labour and big numbers huh?Fysics_Teacher said:
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this but I think you may have added a couple of zeros to the cost per head...NickPalmer said:
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.MarqueeMark said:
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
.0 -
"There is no money left"MarqueeMark said:
Labour and big numbers huh?Fysics_Teacher said:
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this but I think you may have added a couple of zeros to the cost per head...NickPalmer said:
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.MarqueeMark said:
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
.0 -
Russia took on all the debts of the USSR. Is that an analogy that suits your position?CarlottaVance said:
What happened when the Soviet Union broke up?williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
Presumably MarkSenior has been reminding everyone of that single 'parish' council result just as he has done for other outstanding results recently...MarqueeMark said:
She must still be in shock from that Salford by-election....rottenborough said:Christopher HopeVerified account
@christopherhope
Manchester Gorton is not a safe seat, says Rebecca Long-Bailey @pestononsunday0 -
'Very' good. really? Blimey.surbiton said:
The Lib Dems have a very good chance of winning Gorton and they should unless Balls is the candidate.rottenborough said:
I think LibDems are only ones with a chance in that seat.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even better, elect a conservativerottenborough said:The good people of Gorton could do the country a favour and elect a LibDem, thereby finally killing off Corbyn's leadership.
0 -
Is canning the flat-rate VAT scheme beginning to smell like one of Osborne's pasty tax wheezes?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/do-punish-productive-creative-people-economy/0 -
Not sure an analogy based on seizing the land, produce and power in several European countries for decades is a good one there, Mr Glenn....williamglenn said:
Russia took on all the debts of the USSR. Is that an analogy that suits your position?CarlottaVance said:
What happened when the Soviet Union broke up?williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
Correct Labour would be screwed in England if ukip had a left economic agenda mixed with right wing nationalism. But the point is loyalties are just not as strong for either party. With the decline of trade unions for Labour and perhaps less important the decline of the CoE and a fast changing world old party loyalties are being tested on both sides. This makes the opportunity for left wing and right wing insurgents very high. In fact it is surprising insurgent parties have not done made significant gains in England.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nunu, bit different, though, as Labour doesn't face an SNP type threat in England. If it did, they'd be screwed.
Mr. Borough, indeed, although Juppe's odds have lengthened a smidgen and on Ladbrokes FIllon's have fallen from 17 to 13.0 -
Between the liabilities argument and the asset argument, the smart money will be on a payment of roughly zero, but paying for access to certain things and the pensions.FF43 said:
There will be a deal. That implies there will be payment. As RCS has discussed it comes down to how that payment is shaped. The risk is that the UK government wastes limited time and political capital on this instead of getting a better settlement. This isn't poker or bridge where the game finishes on the final turn. The EU is still there; we're still there. We will have a relationship of some kind. It was stupid to have a referendum that rejected one relationship without considering the alternative or even knowing what relationship we want. But it won't be no deal.surbiton said:One thing is certain. This British government or any other for that matter cannot be seen to be paying such a large divorce settlement. Not only have the people not been prepared for it, they have actually been hinted that it will be all plain sailing.
This means no Brexit deal on departure and interminable litigation. The consequences for British exporters [ and importers ] and hence the rest of the economy is serious.
Gradually, industry is beginning to absorb this. Confidence is slowly coming down. The fact that it went up was entirely due to the massive devaluation of the pound. We cannot go on devaluing forever.
The Financial sector and the motor industry will take a big hit.0 -
It sounds as though the bettors who are buying Juppé are skewed towards betting at Ladbrokes even at worse prices.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Interestingly, Ladbrokes has shorter odds for Juppe and longer for Fillon than Betfair. That's mostly been the other way around. If Juppe does replace Fillon, I wonder if Le Pen becomes a third place favourite for the presidency.
Since Fillon announced on 1 March that he wouldn't withdraw, there have been no signs that he will change his mind. He is holding a rally in central Paris today. I'm sure the British media will conclude that he is an insane conspiracy theorist in a tin-foil hat, but it's patently obvious that someone really is out to get him.
Juppé is very unlikely to replace Fillon: Fillon won't withdraw, and even if he did the nomination logistics would be a big problem - increasingly so as 17 March approaches. The longer Fillon stays in, the less likely he'll pull out.
I am expecting shocks in this election, but 71-year-old convicted crook Alain Juppé sweeping all before him as he rides into the Elysée on a crest of popular acclaim is not likely to be one of them.
The Odoxa poll is an outlier. Perhaps they contacted 90% of their pollees within five minutes of Fillon's announcement and after someone on TV talked about Juppé?
The rolling Ifop-Fiducial poll, data collected 28 Feb - 3 Mar, with no Juppé option, gives Le Pen her best first round score since mid-Nov for that company, and her equal hypothetical bests since mid-Feb against both Fillon and Macron in the second round.
I think Macron is a five-minute wonder: no crisis, let's go Nordic, and EU all the way - those aren't vote-winners.
But will Fillon perform as well as polls currently indicate? And where will his votes go if he doesn't?
0 -
Top talent might be able to do so.SouthamObserver said:
Top talent chooses where to go. That makes mood music so important.Sandpit said:
I thought it was the H1-B that they'd stopped fast tracking? That's the vehicle by which IT services firms are bringing cheap bonded Indian labour and making Americans redundant. Many Silicon Valley workers hate Trump with a passion but say they'll forgive him everything else if he ends this abuse of skilled Americans.SouthamObserver said:The US is ending the fast-tracking of visa applications for engineers, scientists, programmers etc from the start of April. This will be a huge setback for Silicon Valley and other tech hubs there. It's also a huge opportunity for us: if the Americans don't want top talent, we should be making clear we do.
http://m.slashdot.org/story/32324
Of course that's not to mean that the UK should place themselves to take advantage of American protecionism, just that this isn't the issue to get excited about.
But the number who actually are 'top talent' is a lot less than the number who think they are 'top talent'.
I suspect a large number of the metropolitan middle class will discover that during the next few decades.
0 -
Tbf the Treasury pledged to honour all UK debts last time out. I'm sure with the new, rosy Brexit outlook for the UK, they'll be even more willing next time.williamglenn said:
Russia took on all the debts of the USSR. Is that an analogy that suits your position?CarlottaVance said:
What happened when the Soviet Union broke up?williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
Mr. Cyan, interesting thoughts, though quite a bit of Fillon's support appears to have crumbled away.
I still think that Le Pen will find it very hard to win, given the nature of the electoral process.0 -
Link?williamglenn said:
Russia took on all the debts of the USSR. Is that an analogy that suits your position?CarlottaVance said:
What happened when the Soviet Union broke up?williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.
Russia took the Security Council seat. So despite your wishes for the end of the UK, or the stripping of rUK's Security Council position, precedent is completely against you.0 -
For some reason you seem to be completely allergic to Macron and keep misrepresenting what he stands for (albeit in vague terms so far).Cyan said:I think Macron is a five-minute wonder: no crisis, let's go Nordic, and EU all the way - those aren't vote-winners.
The election is his to lose at this point, and nothing he's done gives any indication that he's going to lose it.0 -
When is Fillon speaking? I wouldn't want the cash in on the crossover vs Juppe to clash with lunch....0
-
The response to Trump's claim that Obama ordered his telephone be tapped.
"Ben Rhodes, who was Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser and speechwriter, also addressed Mr Trump's claims in a tweet, saying: "No President can order a wire-tap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you."
Killer line.0 -
Can't see the French allowing anything to clash with lunch.Mortimer said:When is Fillon speaking? I wouldn't want the cash in on the crossover vs Juppe to clash with lunch....
0 -
Whichever state is considered the continuation of the pre-existing state retains the treaty rights and obligations of the pre-existing state. Given the imbalance in the size of the two states and the fact it would be Scotland choosing to leave the Union, the rUK would almost certainly retain the rights and responsibilities.williamglenn said:
So would Scotland get 1/10th of a Security Council veto, or would neither state get one?justin124 said:
Surely the existing UK state ceases to exist if Scotland departs. We would be left with Scotland and rUK.Scotland would have as much liability for the debts of the former UK state as the rUK - on a pro rata basis. Otherwise a decision by England & Wales to leave the UK could result in all the former UK's debts being lumbered on Scotland!SouthamObserver said:
But that does not change the legalities. The UK is and will be responsible for its debts. Scotland would no longer be part of the UK. Not agreeing to meet a share may be a bad idea for Scotland, but that is a political/economic judgement for a Scottish government to make.Charles said:
There is a difference between liabilities.SouthamObserver said:
Of course. And in the same way, the UK walking away from liabilities may prove to be very expensive - as the Lords report states. In both cases it would be a political/economic judgement, not one predicated on the law.CarlottaVance said:
Not meeting liabilities wouldn't be a great start for a new currency.....let alone government bonds.....might easily prove more expensive than meeting them....SouthamObserver said:
The same legal argument applies. Nothing would oblige an independent Scotland to meet any liabilities. The issue is much more about the practical consequences of not doing so. As it is for the UK and EU liabilities.CarlottaVance said:
Why? Is resigning a club the same as dissolving a marriage?SouthamObserver said:Presumably what applies to the UK on EU liabilities would also apply to an independent Scotland on UK liabilities.
One is a debt: there is a fixed obligation which must be paid by someone
The EU case is a expectation of future expenditure which can be changed.0 -
Mr. Mortimer, 2pm. Well, scheduled. He was late last time.0
