politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the weekend break welcome back to the coalition of chaos
Comments
-
If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
Mr. Eagles, leaving the country? Running away? Very Pompey of you.0
-
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement and ECJ jurisdiction as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signedkle4 said:
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.HYUFD said:Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.0 -
Brexit and Corbyn. not my circus, not my monkeysMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, leaving the country? Running away? Very Pompey of you.
0 -
I pretty much agree with 1-5, actually. The white man effectively stole the world in the C19th; consider the real meaning of "won" in "How the West was Won", and of "Wars" in "the Indian Wars"; like talking about Germany's Jewish wars. Then having cleared out the red blokes we stole several million black people and put them to work to assure Europe's vital sugar supply.TheScreamingEagles said:Jesus Christ, Young Labour have a worse grasp of history than Morris Dancer.
htps://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919655495505530881
htps://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9196569616286883860 -
Would that not be the case for all investment? Not that it makes much difference, of course.TheScreamingEagles said:
Apparently that's one of the few things they got right, the numbers at least.tlg86 said:
What we're the pre-revision numbers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Forget the half trillion bound error and look at the FDI figures.tlg86 said:
LOL! So the ONS messed up the stats BEFORE the referendum. Conveniently for the government, the mess up showed the country doing better than it actually was.
What they got wrong was the money actually invested in H2 2016 most of it had been committed in advance of the referendum
The problem with numbers like FDI is that people don't feel them. Unemployment and inflation, on the other hand, are easier to grasp.0 -
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...0 -
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.HYUFD said:
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signedkle4 said:
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.HYUFD said:Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.0 -
Oh, and Starmer's position is, as @NickPalmer pointed out, simply not to be the Cons, right now. Jezza can keep the ideological, puppy flank shored up with his loono pronouncements (which are getting fewer, btw) while Starmer can be seen as the sane one fulfilling the opposition's duty to oppose.0
-
-£300Bn from where they were, or where the ONS originally thought they were?SouthamObserver said:
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.HYUFD said:
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signedkle4 said:
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.HYUFD said:Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.0 -
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
0 -
We will see but at the moment UK public opinion is opposed to paying more than £10 billion to the EU let alone £50 to £100 billion. Plus even if that sum was paid I cannot see the EU agreeing to a deal within a reasonable time unless the UK retains free movementSouthamObserver said:
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.HYUFD said:
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signedkle4 said:
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.HYUFD said:Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.0 -
The other thing in Starmer and Labour's favour is that a lot of the Tories said Brexit would be easy, it would be a land of sunlit uplands, whereas he said they were talking pish.TOPPING said:Oh, and Starmer's position is, as @NickPalmer pointed out, simply not to be the Cons, right now. Jezza can keep the ideological, puppy flank shored up with his loono pronouncements (which are getting fewer, btw) while Starmer can be seen as the sane one fulfilling the opposition's duty to oppose.
If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.0 -
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.TOPPING said:
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.0 -
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.0
-
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?0 -
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.0 -
Fair questions. See my post at 09.32.SouthamObserver said:
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...0 -
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?0 -
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.0 -
0
-
Heaven forbid they find out the real reason behind vaccination (particularly of babies).... flavouring....TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
0 -
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.SouthamObserver said:
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.0 -
Your logic is incorrect. If you say to a cancer patient, I think you will have six months and he lives for two years, the timing is wrong (perhaps in a good way), but you got the key facts correct; that he has cancer and will die of it within the short to medium term. The fact the patient will eventually die of something or other, maybe decades later, is irrelevant to the prognosis.Ishmael_Z said:
Wrong in the timing = wrong for all practical purposes. Just as, if you say to every patient you see this week "you are going to die," your prognosis success rate will eventually hit 100%.foxinsoxuk said:
It is beginning to look like Project Fear was only wrong in the timing.Freggles said:So after the jubilant crowing by Leavers that the economy was strong and investment flowing despite the referendum result, it turns out that as predicted we have taken a massive hit.
Boris has screwed the country for his own ambitions
0 -
https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/919614441267908609TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
Of course I crtiicised him for not reducing the deficit - still doTheScreamingEagles said:
I remember the days when you used to criticise Ozzy for not reducing the deficit quick enough.Alanbrooke said:imagine, Osborne consistemtly underfunding ONS has come a cropper
who'd a thunk it ?
When George Osborne walks on water, you'll be criticising him for not being able to swim.
but spending £50 million boosting ONS is chicken shit given the need for accurate data to steer the place in the right direction
Catbert never had any problems finding money when it was one of his pet projects
0 -
If???TheScreamingEagles said:If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....0 -
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.FF43 said:This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.0 -
I expect if Corbyn gets in many PB Tories will be commenting from Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Singapore or Barbados for the duration of his term, the US and Macron's France might also be an option provided Sanders or Warren and Melenchon don't follow or precede CorbynTheScreamingEagles said:
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?0 -
The bigger problem for the ONS was the move to Newport. Nobody wanted to leave London so they lost quite a lot of experience. However, given the way things have gone since the move, they're probably in quite a good spot as South Wales is an affordable place to live.Alanbrooke said:
Of course I crtiicised him for not reducing the deficit - still doTheScreamingEagles said:
I remember the days when you used to criticise Ozzy for not reducing the deficit quick enough.Alanbrooke said:imagine, Osborne consistemtly underfunding ONS has come a cropper
who'd a thunk it ?
When George Osborne walks on water, you'll be criticising him for not being able to swim.
but spending £50 million boosting ONS is chicken shit given the need for accurate data to steer the place in the right direction
Catbert never had any problems finding money when it was one of his pet projects0 -
Sadiq having a day out at Madame Tussauds?TGOHF said:Brave, very brave.
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/919633283461337089
0 -
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.0 -
I guess the DM gave a strong professional counter-opinion to the MMR vaccine also.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
Repeatedly.0 -
Hard to miss it if we never had it in the first place.Beverley_C said:
If???TheScreamingEagles said:If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....0 -
All grimly predictable.Beverley_C said:
If???TheScreamingEagles said:If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....
0 -
Can you provide me with your medical credentials?Pong said:
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.0 -
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.YBarddCwsc said:
The 3 billion pound figure could be raised by putting ~ 0.5 p on income tax.rkrkrk said:
The Dilnot Report estimated their proposal of capping personal costs and raising asset threshold would cost 1.7bn/year, rising to 3.6bn/year by 2025/26.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
So Labour setting aside 3bn/year and leaving themselves flexibility on how high the cap would be and what the asset threshold is seems reasonable.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/briefing-dilnot-commission-social-care-jul11.pdf
That is such a tiny, tiny amount. No-one would notice it.
Does it even sound plausible that the problems in our care service could be solved by such a tiny amount ?
If so, why didn’t Blair do it? Or Brown do it? Or Cameron do it? Or the Coalition do it?
The roots of the Dementia Tax go back a long way -- as I pointed out, the phrase was coined by the Alzheimer’s society in 2007. All these politicians didn’t realise the problem could be fixed by spending a tiny amount of money?
It is a fairy story to think problems as substantial, severe and growing as our ageing population can be solved in an easy way without pain. I am afraid there were a lot of fairy stories in the costings of the Labour Party manifesto.
I speak as someone whose mother passed away from dementia, and I can tell you the presence system (which goes back to Blair) is unbearably wicked & cruel. I’d like to see a National Care Service.
But, we sure as hell won’t get one if you think it will only cost 0.5 p on everyone’s income tax.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect.
Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16.
We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right.
It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
(http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/5261/Spending-on-adult-social-care-statistics-published)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/adult-social-care-spending
0 -
I guess the SNP gave a strong professional counter-opinion on oil price scenarios going into the Referendum also.Theuniondivvie said:
I guess the DM gave a strong professional counter-opinion to the MMR vaccine also.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly.0 -
Given that what you are saying in all but scenario two is that the current status quo is worse than a No Deal that will cause immense damage to the UK economy and its finances - and therefore the living standards and quality of life of tens of millions of people - I just cannot agree with you. I'm afraid. Or maybe we have different views on what a No Deal actually means?TonyE said:
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.SouthamObserver said:
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
0 -
Without any discussion you totally discount the EU offering anything of value through the 800 treaties that we have with them, through the Single Market that makes up 50% of our trade, through their system of third party trade deals, through their regulatory system etc etc. If you only see one side of the balance sheet you won't be able to evaluate whether the settlement is a good one or not.TonyE said:
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.SouthamObserver said:
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.0 -
The FDI part of the story is not an ONS recalculation, it is the figure as released.TonyE said:
-£300Bn from where they were, or where the ONS originally thought they were?SouthamObserver said:
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.HYUFD said:
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signedkle4 said:
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.HYUFD said:Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
0 -
Creepy freudian slip: It's "linchpin" not "lynchpin"TheScreamingEagles said:Jesus Christ, Young Labour have a worse grasp of history than Morris Dancer.
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919655495505530881
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9196569616286883860 -
Most of UK current account deficit is being covered by the ECB!!
“What happens to the gilt market and sterling when the ECB steps back?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/15/britains-missing-billions-revised-figures-reveal-uk-490bn-poorer/0 -
Has Labour got its act together?
Despite all the Tory woes, Labour can only scrape together a tiny lead, smaller than the ones enjoyed by Kinnock and Miliband between elections. It continues to hero worship a hard left economically illiterate leader who is scared to go on the Today programme.
Those predicting a Corbyn government on the back of Tory woes might end up looking as foolish in the end as those forecasting a Tory landslide in June.0 -
It's also 3bn on that, 3bn on this, 3bn on the other, oh and 10bn on this thing etc etc.rkrkrk said:
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.YBarddCwsc said:
The 3 billion pound figure could be raised by putting ~ 0.5 p on income tax.rkrkrk said:
So Labour setting aside 3bn/year and leaving themselves flexibility on how high the cap would be and what the asset threshold is seems reasonable.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/briefing-dilnot-commission-social-care-jul11.pdf
That is such a tiny, tiny amount. No-one would notice it.
Does it even sound plausible that the problems in our care service could be solved by such a tiny amount ?
If so, why didn’t Blair do it? Or Brown do it? Or Cameron do it? Or the Coalition do it?
The roots of the Dementia Tax go back a long way -- as I pointed out, the phrase was coined by the Alzheimer’s society in 2007. All these politicians didn’t realise the problem could be fixed by spending a tiny amount of money?
It is a fairy story to think problems as substantial, severe and growing as our ageing population can be solved in an easy way without pain. I am afraid there were a lot of fairy stories in the costings of the Labour Party manifesto.
I speak as someone whose mother passed away from dementia, and I can tell you the presence system (which goes back to Blair) is unbearably wicked & cruel. I’d like to see a National Care Service.
But, we sure as hell won’t get one if you think it will only cost 0.5 p on everyone’s income tax.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect.
Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16.
We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right.
It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
(http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/5261/Spending-on-adult-social-care-statistics-published)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/adult-social-care-spending
£3bn could be found easily, for example 2.5p on VAT is about £12bn. But Labours planning spending runs into the 10s of billions and likely more.0 -
True, but do you think that its lack will make absolutely no difference?RobD said:
Hard to miss it if we never had it in the first place.Beverley_C said:
If???TheScreamingEagles said:If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....
The economy is more about confidence rather than money.0 -
But if it only came to fruition after several years, we would already have a transitional, wouldn't we and so more room to manoeuvre. My understanding of No Deal is that we crash out on 29th March 2019 (or even before if some of the more extreme elements get their way).JosiasJessop said:
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.TOPPING said:
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
Realistically, I would say that if we get to the point of agreeing a transitional deal, we will get to a final deal, too.
0 -
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
Not only does the ECJ have control over the financial sector now, but the ECJ will continue to have control over the financial sector for years and years to come.TonyE said:
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.SouthamObserver said:
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
Other than that, good post.0 -
One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.0
-
Herd immunity is the normal term for this.FF43 said:One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
Considering the vast majority of the population aren't even offered the flu vaccine though I don't think that applies here.0 -
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
MarqueeMark
Hardly just an SNP counter opinion. The Scottish Government oil price forecasts were below those of the UK Department of Energy and was it not a certain David Cameron in 2014 who forecast a £100 billion oil boom with the Union!0 -
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.TOPPING said:Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
0 -
And the 'Playing cricket with a tennis racket' non sequitur of the day award goes to..MarqueeMark said:
I guess the SNP gave a strong professional counter-opinion on oil price scenarios going into the Referendum also.Theuniondivvie said:
I guess the DM gave a strong professional counter-opinion to the MMR vaccine also.Pong said:
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.TheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly.
When's Dave's £200b oil & gas boom if you vote No going to turn up? I know Scotland is beating rUK on unemployment, youth unemployment, growth and trade, but that would be a nice bonus.0 -
Vaccination give immunity to the individual and (ideally) herd immunity if enough people are vaccinated. IIRC you need about 70% coverage for herd immunity to be effectiveFF43 said:One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
For measles you need 90% or higher coverage.0 -
Not only does the ECJ have control over the financial sector now, but the ECJ will continue to have control over the financial sector for years and years to come.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
Other than that, good post.
Mr Topping
As I understand it, EU control is more about the domestic market, ie selling financial services to end users (be they business or consumer products). What I'm more concerned with would be the international money market, venture capital etc, of which London is very much a centre. Would I be right to say that this is something where SM rules are not encroaching significantly?0 -
If Labour are proposing to cover cost of ‘end of life care', then to get an estimate if the cost, you take the number of people ending the lives in care homes times the typical cost of care fees.rkrkrk said:
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect.
Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16.
We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right.
It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
(http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/5261/Spending-on-adult-social-care-statistics-published)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/adult-social-care-spending
I have already pointed out -- since Blair’s time -- most people fund their own end of life care in care homes. They only get a free place if they have assets less than 23 k.
However, to bias the die in your favour, let’s assume that only 2/3 of people are paying their own care fees.
2/3 * 30000 pa * 300000 = 4.5 billion, which exceeds the amount claimed by Labour for setting up a National Care Service. I haven’t even mentioned the other costs that would need to be covered.
As I understand it, the Dilnot proposal is to cover the cost of the NURSING component of the care bill !!!! That is not the same as the care bill !!!!
Finally, I strongly dislike statements like “I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.”
We’ve just seen (the thread header) the dangers of allowing other people to do your thinking for you. It turned out that the ONS, despite doing more thinking, were grossly wrong and many contributors on pb were closer to the mark.
People should be able to make order of magnitude estimates of the costs of politicians' proposals.
Perhaps then, we wouldn’t fall victim to so many politician’s lies or false promises ?0 -
I agree that sounds pretty bad. There will of course have to be some arbiter of whatever set of rules we come up with and I can see that if it turns into a he said-she said issue between the UK and the EU without such an arbiter agreed then that is a recipe for danger.JosiasJessop said:
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.TOPPING said:
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?JosiasJessop said:
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.SouthamObserver said:
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Oh dear ...
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
As for "clauses more political" - well that is the Pandora's Box that we opened. The whole shebang is political, and our leaving and the terms on which we leave, will be no different.0 -
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?SouthamObserver said:<
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.0 -
We chose that route ages agoFF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
While giving a cast iron commitment to have no physical infrastructure on our only real land border. How is that supposed to work?archer101au said:I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs.
0 -
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.Philip_Thompson said:
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.TOPPING said:Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.0 -
A failure of the Blair government, but we will correct it eventually.Alanbrooke said:
We chose that route ages agoFF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.ydoethur said:
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.OldKingCole said:
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.ydoethur said:
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.OldKingCole said:
+1 (almost!!!)Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more.
Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.0 -
We were riding two horses, I think [whether the UK was fully part of the European financial market]. I can't see any Brexit scenario where the horses don't separate sufficiently for us to fall through the gap.Alanbrooke said:
We chose that route ages agoFF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
Is intersting that people think this is a government in chaos. As a child of seveties I remember continual strikes, power cuts, rubbish everywhere, morris marinas, and the UK as the sick man of the world. Look at the UK now. Having just spent the weekend in Weymouth I feel generally grateful that I live in the UK. Its a great place, and to my mind the Governemnt is operating very effectively. Obviously with the 24 hours news cycle looking for news where it does not exist its very hard to be a politician or to work in Givernment. Did the response of the Government to the Monarch collapse look like a Governmentt in chaos. In a very orderly and professional manner a plan was put in place to bring hundreds of thousand of people back to the UK. This has now been completed without a hitch. Hardly the actions of a Government in chaos.0
-
It looks very nice Mr Eagles. I am sure you will be very Brexit-safe there. What is you internet connection like?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm heading out to Canada next week to seal the deal on a house there, is one of my contingencies for when Brexit becomes a shit show and Corbyn as PM.Jonathan said:Looks at dire state of politics. Holds head in hands. Sighs. Gets busy with something else.
0 -
Venture Capital is caught by EU rules (https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/regulation-european-venture-capital-funds-euveca_en)TonyE said:Mr Topping
As I understand it, EU control is more about the domestic market, ie selling financial services to end users (be they business or consumer products). What I'm more concerned with would be the international money market, venture capital etc, of which London is very much a centre. Would I be right to say that this is something where SM rules are not encroaching significantly?
The EU pretty much covers all financial services that are operated cross-border or might be. Which is pretty much everything.0 -
I can claim I can buy a Ferrari with the old pound left in my pocket and call it 'costed'. It woudl bej ust as meaningless.DecrepitJohnL said:
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.ydoethur said:
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.OldKingCole said:
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.ydoethur said:
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.OldKingCole said:
+1 (almost!!!)Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more.
Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.0 -
I think the thread began with YDoethur saying the costings were dishonest.DecrepitJohnL said:
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.ydoethur said:
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.OldKingCole said:
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.ydoethur said:
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.OldKingCole said:
+1 (almost!!!)Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more.
Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I agree with YDoethur.
0 -
That's ridiculous. The problems of Monarch have been known for some time and much of the rescuing was done within the travel industry by other operators taking the slots for the Monarch flights. I don't think the Government had a lot to do with it.currystar said:Is intersting that people think this is a government in chaos. As a child of seveties I remember continual strikes, power cuts, rubbish everywhere, morris marinas, and the UK as the sick man of the world. Look at the UK now. Having just spent the weekend in Weymouth I feel generally grateful that I live in the UK. Its a great place, and to my mind the Governemnt is operating very effectively. Obviously with the 24 hours news cycle looking for news where it does not exist its very hard to be a politician or to work in Givernment. Did the response of the Government to the Monarch collapse look like a Governmentt in chaos. In a very orderly and professional manner a plan was put in place to bring hundreds of thousand of people back to the UK. This has now been completed without a hitch. Hardly the actions of a Government in chaos.
As an apologist for the current administration, what do you make of the attacks on Johnson one week and Hammond the next ? Yes, it doesn't mean much to most people getting on with their lives but it doesn't create a strong impression of a Government united and focused - rather a bunch of squabbling cats in a sack.
As to "operating very effectively", does the Government do that much these days ? Local authorities and other organisations do most of the heavy lifting - does Government build houses, feed and clothe and keep essential services running ? Only peripherally - it's at best an enabler, most people get on despite the Government rather than because of it.
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41633356
It means the trains, capable of travelling at 148mph, will still have to travel at the speed of the current Intercity trains (125mph maximum) and run on diesel fuel for the last section of the journey from Maidenhead to Bristol.
The last section from Maidenhead to Bristol? That's one way of putting it!0 -
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.archer101au said:I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit0 -
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto.YBarddCwsc said:
I think the thread began with YDoethur saying the costings were dishonest.DecrepitJohnL said:
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.ydoethur said:
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more.
Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I agree with YDoethur.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.0 -
A basic point which in incorrect.DecrepitJohnL said:None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
A document with numbers in is "has costs" but is not "costed" unless those numbers add up.
Labour's manifesto was not costed.0 -
Then the IFS (and quite possibly even CCHQ at its most dysfunctional) would question the cost of Labour's free Ferrari promise.Slackbladder said:
I can claim I can buy a Ferrari with the old pound left in my pocket and call it 'costed'. It woudl bej ust as meaningless.DecrepitJohnL said:
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.YBarddCwsc said:
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.ydoethur said:
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.OldKingCole said:
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.ydoethur said:
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.OldKingCole said:
+1 (almost!!!)Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more.
Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.0 -
This is one of those quotes to record for posterity. Even the biggest calculations of costs to the City are a tiny fraction of the gap between London and Frankfurt. Most financial exports aren't even into the EU, so why would it matter? The hit is likely to be some small operations to sell into the EU will be distributed between Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg so there won't even be an agglomeration elsewhere.FF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
There will have to be border controls between NI and ROI. However, once again this has all been done before. The EEA members are not in the Customs Union. The border between Norway and Sweden has customs controls but no physical barriers, as far as the understand it. Goods importers are required to use one of a few designated crossings (as opposed to individuals) and they have to report to customs stations to clear their goods.williamglenn said:
While giving a cast iron commitment to have no physical infrastructure on our only real land border. How is that supposed to work?archer101au said:I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs.
0 -
Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations. The EU barely has trade agreements with any major economies. As I keep asking, if free trade agreements are so unbelievably valuable and WTO so utter crap, why has the EU been perfectly content to trade on WTO rules most of its major trade partners for the last 20 years?Scott_P said:
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.archer101au said:I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit0 -
Canada spent 7 yearsarcher101au said:Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations.
0 -
I can't see any reason why the UK will need to follow ECB rules for the UK financial sector after Brexit. Like all trade, if you want to trade in a foreign country you follow their rules, if you trade in your own country you follow your own rules. Once again, this is how it works all across the World. New York and Tokyo don't follow ECB rules.TOPPING said:
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.Philip_Thompson said:
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.TOPPING said:Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.0 -
You said capital, not time. And it is not exactly exhausting the resources of a nation such as Canada to have 50 trade negotiators playing around with this, is it?Scott_P said:
Canada spent 7 yearsarcher101au said:Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations.
0 -
I think on balance @FF43s comments were about right. London isn't going to fall into a hole, but increasingly it will be considered with other capitals when financial services institutions consider their options.Elliot said:
This is one of those quotes to record for posterity. Even the biggest calculations of costs to the City are a tiny fraction of the gap between London and Frankfurt. Most financial exports aren't even into the EU, so why would it matter? The hit is likely to be some small operations to sell into the EU will be distributed between Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg so there won't even be an agglomeration elsewhere.FF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Here are the scores on the doors so far; far more than you suggest, far from apocalyptic:
https://thetradenews.com/Sell-side/The-Brexit-exodus-story-so-far/0 -
The EU has huge numbers of trade Deals with 3rd parties. What it doesn't have is Free Trade Deals which remove all tariffs into the majority of each others economies.archer101au said:
Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations. The EU barely has trade agreements with any major economies. As I keep asking, if free trade agreements are so unbelievably valuable and WTO so utter crap, why has the EU been perfectly content to trade on WTO rules most of its major trade partners for the last 20 years?Scott_P said:
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.archer101au said:I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit
Forget tariffs, concentrate on the real costs : Non Tariff Barriers.0 -
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.DecrepitJohnL said:
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.0 -
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.archer101au said:
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?SouthamObserver said:<
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
0 -
Theresa Merkel having a bad Monday
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/wahl-in-niedersachsen/cdu-pleite-in-niedersachsen-ist-auch-daempfer-fuer-angela-merkel-15247848.html0 -
that choice was always going to be forced on us you cant ride 2 horses for everFF43 said:
We were riding two horses, I think [whether the UK was fully part of the European financial market]. I can't see any Brexit scenario where the horses don't separate sufficiently for us to fall through the gap.Alanbrooke said:
We chose that route ages agoFF43 said:
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.Beverley_C said:
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.TonyE said:I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
0 -
hardly seamlessSouthamObserver said:
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.archer101au said:
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?SouthamObserver said:<
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.0 -
Looks like we are going to be living with batshit Corbynism with a hint of antisemitism for years to come...
https://order-order.com/2017/10/16/young-labour-leave-nato-abolish-the-city-and-scrap-two-state-solution/0 -
They will follow ECB rules because the financial services sector is intertwined with Europe, and the rest of the world, in such a way that to disentangle it would be impossible.archer101au said:
I can't see any reason why the UK will need to follow ECB rules for the UK financial sector after Brexit. Like all trade, if you want to trade in a foreign country you follow their rules, if you trade in your own country you follow your own rules. Once again, this is how it works all across the World. New York and Tokyo don't follow ECB rules.TOPPING said:
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.Philip_Thompson said:
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.TOPPING said:Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.
JP Morgan in New York doesn't follow ECB rules, but if it wants to trade european assets, then it must use an EU-regulated entity to do so. So New York sort of does follow ECB rules.
If you are saying your pension fund should be restricted to buying listed and non-listed assets of UK companies issued in the UK then I suppose, as they say, it's a view.0 -
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
Just like bat-shit crazy Corbyn too.Roger said:
Poor Max. With Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
She's scrubbing up well in the picture on the right.Roger said:
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
Actually, Katie is smart. This is a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.Roger said:
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
It is in your interests for you not to vaccinate your child, but for everyone else to vaccinate theirs.
0 -
Australia had its worst flu season on record in the winter of 2017. Most recorded cases are in the children and elderly, but that may be reporting bias.Roger said:
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/the-biggest-mistakes-australians-are-making-in-the-influenza-outbreak/news-story/04f663dbe5dde7a7755f85bf8839d41d0 -
Not keen on the beard tho'..TOPPING said:
She's scrubbing up well in the picture on the right.Roger said:
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problemsTheScreamingEagles said:If you were in any doubt that Katie Hopkins is [insert rude word] this should convince you
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/9197028509969858590 -
OK - a lot more seamless than it is going to be!Alanbrooke said:
hardly seamlessSouthamObserver said:
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.archer101au said:
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?SouthamObserver said:<
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
0 -
Swine flu vaccinations cause brain damage in children.0
