As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
It's an example of the sort of problem that cannot be solved by individual countries acting in isolation, or by multinational groupings where the most exploitative country can veto the others. It's this sort of thing that makes moving towards political unity is desirable - we won't be able to solve the issues of a globalised world on our own, any more than, say, the Mayor of London can solve the issues of national taxation. No taxation without EFFECTIVE representation is the slogan that we need here.
No - if you say that the problems are global you then are forced into saying that there should be a global government. Maybe that is what you want, I don't know.
I think this is the wrong approach. Power should be close to the people. And if that means that different countries have different / competing tax rates and all the rest, so be it. Diversity is good!
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
It was interesting to see how well Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Milliband performed today in contrast to Corbyn. I haven't seen Lisa Nandy's contribution yet.
My money is on Nandy and May as next leaders of their parties.
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
Having seen his Commons performance I seriously doubt that.......
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
'Cameron is in danger of moving from merely putting forward reasons to remain, to being an outright shill for the EU.'
Always going to happen, especially as his deal consists of absolutely nothing of value.
The only chance he has is to try to big up the existing situation now, alongside the scaremongering of course.
If he tries to argue like Sajid Javed 'it's dreadful, we should never have joined, but I don't think I dare leave in case err...um...', Cameron will be given a massive raspberry by the public.
But becoming a mouthpiece for EU/European Movement style propaganda essentially means he will have to try to convince the public of something they have not been convinced of by the experiences of the last 40 years (and the same propaganda repeated of course).
And it will guarantee him being hated by the Conservative membership. But I think he is quite relaxed about that.
At some point, Cameron and his deal will be completely trashed by a prominent Tory for Leave.
Who might that be? As we discovered today, the prominent Tories for leave don't agree what they mean by leave, let alone articulate a coherent case for it...
Where did Mr Chestnut say anything about articulating a case, honestly, you answer the questions you wish people had asked, not the ones that people actually ask. He said someone would trash Cameron's case. Personally I think that is more likely to happen with another EU Leader getting into a hotspot with his domestic audience and saying more than he should.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
I get the feeling Boris had told Dave he was a Remainer, as Dave had gone out of his to get Boris onside.
Boris only gave Dave 9 mins notice he was backing Leave.
Dave does not like how Boris has behaved. Compare and contrast how warmly Dave spoke about Gove.
Boris is getting justifiable blowback for dicking around.
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
I can't make out if that is a joke or not. Is it ironic? I don't get it.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Or they will rout him.
The Tory civil war in the 90s is often the precendent used. I'd also remember though that the last time a government had a huge backbench rebellion - Labour over the Iraq war - it caused huge ructions. Politics is never a public school sports match where you play hard and then shake hands afterwards.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Or they will rout him.
They won't like it if Cameron flashman's his own side.
If he wants to win, I think that he has to. I doubt if he ever expected half his party to be opposing him on this.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
If Boris Johnson really did give David Cameron 9 minutes notice of his intentions by text, he won't have thought they'd still be mates. He might reasonably have hoped that David Cameron would not knife him so publicly so quickly, but that's not the same thing at all.
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
As someone who has always been Eurosceptic and has not always agreed with Cameron, I believe he is a credit to his party and his nation. The way he conducts himself in the HoC, in Liaison Committee Meetings and on the international stage speaks to his stature as prime minister. We will miss him when he's gone.
At some point, Cameron and his deal will be completely trashed by a prominent Tory for Leave.
Who might that be? As we discovered today, the prominent Tories for leave don't agree what they mean by leave, let alone articulate a coherent case for it...
It will come, Scott.
A lot of people have cut Cameron slack, hoping that he might actually deliver. He hasn't, and he's compounded the failure by over-dressing his deal.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Or they will rout him.
They won't like it if Cameron flashman's his own side.
If he wants to win, I think that he has to. I doubt if he ever expected half his party to be opposing him on this.
That will do a lot of damage.
And of course the difference with Iraq and Maastrict is Cameron has people in his own government opposing him. Will he go all Flashman on Michael Gove?
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
If Boris was getting such a shellacking, as he was, he ought to have stood up and been a damn sight smarter than asking a question that was Corbyn-like in its ease for Cam to answer.
It's going to come as a bit of a shock to some that the referendum will also be open to Labour, Lib Dem, SNP & Green voters. A casual reader of PB might be forgiven that only Tory voters were going to decide it!
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
I can't make out if that is a joke or not. Is it ironic? I don't get it.
Johnson's move against Cameron is similar to Howe's against Thatcher. It's the death knell.
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
I can't make out if that is a joke or not. Is it ironic? I don't get it.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
I get the feeling Boris had told Dave he was a Remainer, as Dave had gone out of his to get Boris onside.
Boris only gave Dave 9 mins notice he was backing Leave.
Dave does not like how Boris has behaved. Compare and contrast how warmly Dave spoke about Gove.
Boris is getting justifiable blowback for dicking around.
I think that is a fair comment and Boris has also said that really he would like to stay in with just a bit of tweaking around but is getting all the Leave headlines. It all seems just a bit of a rebellion just for public consumption. His views may be genuine, but I don't think they are very practical which questions his judgement. Plus just texting with a few minutes notice seems a bit shabby.
I think people are over egging the situation. All the power is with Cameron in those situations, Boris can ask one question and can't reply.
However, it was an easy question for Cameron to bat away, the sort of question you see new opposition MPs ask at PMQ's and are shocked when they get ripped a new one. Boris isn't wet behind the ears when it comes to the way parliament works, nor is he stupid, it was just lazy.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
If Boris Johnson really did give David Cameron 9 minutes notice of his intentions by text, he won't have thought they'd still be mates. He might reasonably have hoped that David Cameron would not knife him so publicly so quickly, but that's not the same thing at all.
Cameron is ruthless when campaigning. I don't think he has a go-easy mode. His fire is now turned on part of his own party which is, well, awkward. Also he bears and prosecutes grudges.
Cameron is trying to claw something back from a weak opening position.
You need to listen to Denning a bit more;
Thus far I have assumed that our Parliament, whenever it passes legislation, intends to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament.
Bqris Johnson got what he deserved today. His Telegraph article makes clear what he really thinks. We should vote in the referendum as if we were at a Turkish bazaar. Walk away and then the stallholder makes his best offer. Then do a deal. That is not vote to leave. It is vote to remain on better terms. Boris is not an outer. He is out for himself. I liked the bit yesterday when he said that he wont debate with colleagues. You bet he wont. That would require a command of detail and an agile debating mind. Far better to ruffle his hair, grin and do the HIGNFY schtick. He has convinced me. He is not serious on this issue. He can be safely ignored.
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
As someone who has always been Eurosceptic and has not always agreed with Cameron, I believe he is a credit to his party and his nation. The way he conducts himself in the HoC, in Liaison Committee Meetings and on the international stage speaks to his stature as prime minister. We will miss him when he's gone.
Bqris Johnson got what he deserved today. His Telegraph article makes clear what he really thinks. We should vote in the referendum as if we were at a Turkish bazaar. Walk away and then the stallholder makes his best offer. Then do a deal. That is not vote to leave. It is vote to remain on better terms. Boris is not an outer. He is out for himself. I liked the bit yesterday when he said that he wont debate with colleagues. You bet he wont. That would require a command of detail and an agile debating mind. Far better to ruffle his hair, grin and do the HIGNFY schtick. He has convinced me. He is not serious on this issue. He can be safely ignored.
How will the electorate feel if they think Cameron has knifed his Bullingdon brother in the back? Particularly when one considers the Miliband experience. One of the attractions of patrician Tories is their apparent sense of loyalty.
It feels like the fog is already starting to lift on both the EU ref and the Tory leader issues.
It seems increasingly clear to me that:
- despite his derisory renegotiation efforts, and the disappointment he has brought to millions, myself included, Cameron will probably pull this one off - Remain will win, probably comfortably (60%+) - Leave will manage to put across a reasoned and respectable case, that will chime with many more people than will actually vote Leave and as a result, we will all be better informed and educated about the EU and our place in it - which may help when we do eventually need to throw a Brexit bomb into the room - Boris has, predictably, tied himself up in a terrible mess of knots - he will not be the next Tory leader and PM. He'll be a regular back on HIGNFY by the end of 2016 and thereafter
I expected a lack of clarity on the above to persist for many weeks yet, but I don't think that is going to be the case.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept that we got no protection for the City. As I've said many times, Cameron did slightly better on that than I was expecting. It's not as much protection as I'd like, but better than before the rengotiation, and vastly better than an EEA deal.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
As someone who has always been Eurosceptic and has not always agreed with Cameron, I believe he is a credit to his party and his nation. The way he conducts himself in the HoC, in Liaison Committee Meetings and on the international stage speaks to his stature as prime minister. We will miss him when he's gone.
Surely you jest, you are about as disloyal as Mr Nabavi.
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
As someone who has always been Eurosceptic and has not always agreed with Cameron, I believe he is a credit to his party and his nation. The way he conducts himself in the HoC, in Liaison Committee Meetings and on the international stage speaks to his stature as prime minister. We will miss him when he's gone.
Agreed.
Disagree. He's a dilettante who does well on TV. His blundering foreign policy (not always his fault) could well be his legacy and not in a good way. He's spent his time doing little to enhance his standing in Europe and then demands big favours, has been ambivalent towards the US and now appears to want to sell us to the Chinese communist party.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
I get the feeling Boris had told Dave he was a Remainer, as Dave had gone out of his to get Boris onside.
Boris only gave Dave 9 mins notice he was backing Leave.
Dave does not like how Boris has behaved. Compare and contrast how warmly Dave spoke about Gove.
Boris is getting justifiable blowback for dicking around.
Oh, I totally agree he mucked around.
I've said he should have declared jointly with Gove on Friday.
Questions have been raised over whether Ukraine's choice for Eurovision is too political as it refers to Stalin's deportation of the Tatar minority from the Crimea.
Jamala's song "1944" was chosen to represent Ukraine at the contest in Stockholm in May, after a public vote on Ukrainian national TV.
It's going to come as a bit of a shock to some that the referendum will also be open to Labour, Lib Dem, SNP & Green voters. A casual reader of PB might be forgiven that only Tory voters were going to decide it!
There is a real danger that the left will become so wrapped up in Tory shenanigans that they will forget the potential consequences of TTIP for the public sector.
Irreversible privatisation if under EU jurisdiction.
Questions have been raised over whether Ukraine's choice for Eurovision is too political as it refers to Stalin's deportation of the Tatar minority from the Crimea.
Jamala's song "1944" was chosen to represent Ukraine at the contest in Stockholm in May, after a public vote on Ukrainian national TV.
At some point, Cameron and his deal will be completely trashed by a prominent Tory for Leave.
Who might that be? As we discovered today, the prominent Tories for leave don't agree what they mean by leave, let alone articulate a coherent case for it...
What has former prominent Tory Douglas Carswell suggested he means by Leave? You do not get a much bigger split than someone walking out and joining a new party. Where is he? Has anybody quoted him? Why are people only quoting a tory backbench MP who says he is voting leave but would rather like to rather actually stay in the EU.
The mechanism does provide another means of political recourse to enforce such principles and as such is a shift in the status quo – though it doesn’t alter the voting mechanism and is not a full stop on a proposal.
It may be "the best that could be got". But it's a political fudge that changes nothing. The City will be reamed by the French.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
Take the current set of rules and regulations for financial instruments making its way through the EU, MiFID.
It has taken a long long time to negotiate, counter-negotiate, compromise and counter-compromise. You yourself said that you used to work with Kay Swinburne's boss. Perhaps you discussed it.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
And as for the EEA, I found the relevant paragraphs the other day when discussing with @Richard_Tyndall but in short, members of the EEA have no primary input into EU legislation although they can choose to accept it or not. They (EEA members) can sit on committees, on usually research and technology projects, if they have contributed to the project under discussion.
The mechanism does provide another means of political recourse to enforce such principles and as such is a shift in the status quo – though it doesn’t alter the voting mechanism and is not a full stop on a proposal.
It may be "the best that could be got". But it's a political fudge that changes nothing. The City will be reamed by the French.
You do realise that, don't you?
I agree it's a risk, albeit a smaller one than the situation before the renegotiation, and a tiny one compared with the EEA route.
I always thought Dave and Boris didn't get along. They're both ambitious politicians with an addiction to the limelight and a belief in their right to rule, its inevitable they'll fall out from time to time.
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
As someone who has always been Eurosceptic and has not always agreed with Cameron, I believe he is a credit to his party and his nation. The way he conducts himself in the HoC, in Liaison Committee Meetings and on the international stage speaks to his stature as prime minister. We will miss him when he's gone.
Agreed.
Disagree. He's a dilettante who does well on TV. His blundering foreign policy (not always his fault) could well be his legacy and not in a good way. He's spent his time doing little to enhance his standing in Europe and then demands big favours, has been ambivalent towards the US and now appears to want to sell us to the Chinese communist party.
A charlatan without any strategic vision.
Almost all politicians are "charlatans" and his success should be seen in that context and the hand he was dealt in 2010 when many thought the Coalition would last a few months and yet here he is over six years later having won two general elections, two referenda and shortly another and leaving as PM at a time of his choosing.
Cameron is no Churchill, Attlee, Gladstone or Disraeli but in the context of the managerial PM's of the past fifty years he has been a success and broadly conducted himself well as PM.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
It seems to me that zero equals zero.
That's a perfectly legitimate position to take. If you think that we have no influence inside the EU, and expect to have no influence outside, then the point is moot.
I disagree that we have zero influence. In fact I know when it comes to MiFID we funnily enough were among the prime influencers in many of the measures that have come to be enacted.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
I don't think there will be a significant Conservative ground game for Remain. Labour and the LibDems may offset that to a small extent, but the ground-game advantage is going to be clearly with Leave, I think.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
the latter question re USD transactions - do not apply. The SEC decides how USD-denominated instruments are traded.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
This is not confined to the conservative party. The vast majority of other parties will campaign to remain
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
I can think of a party with one MP that will have more active campaigners than any other party.
Almost all politicians are "charlatans" and his success should be seen in that context and the hand he was dealt in 2010 when many thought the Coalition would last a few months and yet here he is over six years later having won two general elections, two referenda and shortly another and leaving as PM at a time of his choosing.
Cameron is no Churchill, Attlee, Gladstone or Disraeli but in the context of the managerial PM's of the past fifty years he has been a success and broadly conducted himself well as PM.
The main reason the coalition survived is because you would struggle to insert a cigarette paper between the views of Cameron and Clegg, much to the dismay of quite a number of both their parties. If Cameron knocked on your door in a orange rosette and talked about his policy aspirations, you would never feel that anything was amiss.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
Or, more likely, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
We'd have as much input as other major financial service participants.
But other countries are free to regulate their industries as they see fit. And then we decide how best to play in those markets. But the critical point is that MiFiD wouldn't apply directly to London-based firms.
Let's take compensation as an example. The decision to cap bonuses at 1x salary is awful. Not because I think bankers should be paid more (the vast majority of them should be paid less) but because the outcome has been increases in fixed compensation when what the industry really needs is highly variable compensation so it can adjust to volatility in the revenue line. And then they decided to extend it to fund managers and brokers, which have no structural implications, except to cripple London's competitiveness compared to non-European markets. This was done by MEPs with no interest in financial services - and no accountability for the impact on jobs - but who wanted to be able to tell their constituents that they had kicked the evil Anglo-Saxon speculators.
It's very simple: regulation needs to be implemented by people who know what they are doing and who are accountable for their actions. The current EU set up doesn't provide for that and, additionally, will create very asymmetric interests for the people setting the rules vs those (us) who have to abide by them
p.s. my comment on Kay was just to highlight that she isn't very bright and she's not very good at attention to detail. But I can't talk too much about that particular (not very happy) situation as there was bad behaviour on all sides.
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
I don't think there will be a significant Conservative ground game for Remain. Labour and the LibDems may offset that to a small extent, but the ground-game advantage is going to be clearly with Leave, I think.
But Labour have a fantastic ground game, right?
More and more convinced this is going to be a terribly low turnout referendum. Perhaps sub 50%. Ground game is going to be significant.
In personal developments, if Cameron continues to poor such vitriol over positions taken by many sensible people in his own party after giving in to the fools in Europe on Friday, I might start actively campaigning for Leave.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
I can think of a party with one MP that will have more active campaigners than any other party.
I said parties with more than one MP as the evidence would imply they're better at GOTV operations. A party with only one MP may not be the best example of GOTV otherwise by definition they'd have more than one MP.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
The party with 1 MP won't need to GOTV, 98% of their members will be waiting at the door of the polling stations when they open.
The mechanism does provide another means of political recourse to enforce such principles and as such is a shift in the status quo – though it doesn’t alter the voting mechanism and is not a full stop on a proposal.
It may be "the best that could be got". But it's a political fudge that changes nothing. The City will be reamed by the French.
You do realise that, don't you?
I agree it's a risk, albeit a smaller one than the situation before the renegotiation, and a tiny one compared with the EEA route.
It's not smaller. Previously we could take them to court and win (e.g. the clearing case). Under the agreement we can protest, and that's it.
Under the EEA we can't change the outcome, but we can innovate a response to it.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
The party with 1 MP won't need to GOTV, 98% of their members will be waiting at the door of the polling stations when they open.
Makes 0 difference if millions more vote the other way. Winning requires 50%+1 of the whole country not the majority of your own party.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
Or, more likely, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
But other countries are free to regulate their industries as they see fit. And then we decide how best to play in those markets. But the critical point is that MiFiD wouldn't apply directly to London-based firms.
No, sadly not. If we wanted to trade eg. Deutsche Tel out of London then we would have to abide by MiFID whether in or out of the EU.
And, seriously, we could not develop a synthetic Deutsche Tel market in the UK when the underlying is being traded according to different rules in Frankfurt.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
the latter question re USD transactions - do not apply. The SEC decides how USD-denominated instruments are traded.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
It seems to me that zero equals zero.
That's a perfectly legitimate position to take. If you think that we have no influence inside the EU, and expect to have no influence outside, then the point is moot.
I disagree that we have zero influence. In fact I know when it comes to MiFID we funnily enough were among the prime influencers in many of the measures that have come to be enacted.
I think that we will have zero influence after a Remain vote - after all, what are we going to do if the eurozone do something to us we don't like? Leaving will be off the table so there ain't a whole lot left.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
the latter question re USD transactions - do not apply. The SEC decides how USD-denominated instruments are traded.
MiFID applies to EU financial instruments.
You didn't quite answer my question, or maybe I misunderstood.
Inside the EU, does MiFID apply to transactions USD transaction with a US customer, or is it only the US rulebook ?
If the answer is no what about the EU adding new regulations to "enhance" the US rulebook on that sort of trade by QMV.
On the Physical goods side of the economy manufacturers have to comply with EU standards even if they are more onerous than those of their non-EU customer, in addition to that customer's standards. Outside the EU we would only have to apply EU standards when shipping goods to EU customers.
It's not smaller. Previously we could take them to court and win (e.g. the clearing case). Under the agreement we can protest, and that's it.
No, quite the opposite. We've got a stronger framework for taking them to court.
No, it;'s quite explicit. The same rules apply to all countries, and we have the right to protest, during which time the Commission (?) will seek to find a consensus but it won't interfere with the normal voting process.
It's not smaller. Previously we could take them to court and win (e.g. the clearing case). Under the agreement we can protest, and that's it.
No, quite the opposite. We've got a stronger framework for taking them to court.
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Richard: with respect, if you have worked as a lawyer in financial services, as I have for the best part of 30 years, you end up knowing a hell of a lot about EU law. I have also - admittedly some while ago - been involved in EU politics (the lead up to the Single European Act) and have been involved in discussions with regulators since then here and in Europe in relation to financial regulatory matters.
Disagree with me, if you want, but don't go round saying palpable nonsense like "Nor are you lawyers versed in the minutiae of EU law....."
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
I can think of a party with one MP that will have more active campaigners than any other party.
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
Unlike Scotland, the UK parliament is sovereign, and with only minor ingenuity the new leader will find a pretext to call the last referendum a sham and either call a new one, or just announce that we will be leaving, depending on his mandate and support at the time.
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
the latter question re USD transactions - do not apply. The SEC decides how USD-denominated instruments are traded.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
I can think of a party with one MP that will have more active campaigners than any other party.
Scottish Labour, Conservative or LibDem ? ..
Grin.
Incidentally, I have an anecdotal suspicion that many southern lib dems have decamped to the Greens after the coalition. I saw an awful lot of Green ground activity in Dorset last year, and far less Lib Dem than ever before.
It feels like the fog is already starting to lift on both the EU ref and the Tory leader issues.
It seems increasingly clear to me that:
- despite his derisory renegotiation efforts, and the disappointment he has brought to millions, myself included, Cameron will probably pull this one off - Remain will win, probably comfortably (60%+) - Leave will manage to put across a reasoned and respectable case, that will chime with many more people than will actually vote Leave and as a result, we will all be better informed and educated about the EU and our place in it - which may help when we do eventually need to throw a Brexit bomb into the room - Boris has, predictably, tied himself up in a terrible mess of knots - he will not be the next Tory leader and PM. He'll be a regular back on HIGNFY by the end of 2016 and thereafter
I expected a lack of clarity on the above to persist for many weeks yet, but I don't think that is going to be the case.
You need to stop being all gaylord ponceyboots and vote Leave.
A Remain victory of over 60% would be fatal to our national interest.
Comments
I think this is the wrong approach. Power should be close to the people. And if that means that different countries have different / competing tax rates and all the rest, so be it. Diversity is good!
How many international intelligence sharing agreements with Tier 1 ELINT providers does the EU Commision have ?
Cameron went for the kill, Boris thought they were still mates.
Gloves off now. I'm very sad to see this from Cameron, but he's fired the starting pistol.
My money is on Nandy and May as next leaders of their parties.
A busted flush
Always going to happen, especially as his deal consists of absolutely nothing of value.
The only chance he has is to try to big up the existing situation now, alongside the scaremongering of course.
If he tries to argue like Sajid Javed 'it's dreadful, we should never have joined, but I don't think I dare leave in case err...um...', Cameron will be given a massive raspberry by the public.
But becoming a mouthpiece for EU/European Movement style propaganda essentially means he will have to try to convince the public of something they have not been convinced of by the experiences of the last 40 years (and the same propaganda repeated of course).
And it will guarantee him being hated by the Conservative membership. But I think he is quite relaxed about that.
Boris only gave Dave 9 mins notice he was backing Leave.
Dave does not like how Boris has behaved. Compare and contrast how warmly Dave spoke about Gove.
Boris is getting justifiable blowback for dicking around.
He was lambasted as a "buffoon" right up to the point he was elected Mayor of London.
A lot of people have cut Cameron slack, hoping that he might actually deliver. He hasn't, and he's compounded the failure by over-dressing his deal.
It's barely 48 hours since he announced it.
I do wonder at the fickleness of some here.
He's supposed to be the next leader, right?
Or is he just good with fawning press around him?
Doesn't work for candidate PM
Edit: but they may be too clever. Trying to embarass and humiliate Leave could easily backfire
He was publicly kicked by Cameron, given the opportunity to respond, and fluffed it.
However, it was an easy question for Cameron to bat away, the sort of question you see new opposition MPs ask at PMQ's and are shocked when they get ripped a new one. Boris isn't wet behind the ears when it comes to the way parliament works, nor is he stupid, it was just lazy.
The IAAF has provisionally suspended the chief executive of Athletics Kenya amid allegations he asked athletes for bribes to reduce doping bans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35635391
It seems increasingly clear to me that:
- despite his derisory renegotiation efforts, and the disappointment he has brought to millions, myself included, Cameron will probably pull this one off
- Remain will win, probably comfortably (60%+)
- Leave will manage to put across a reasoned and respectable case, that will chime with many more people than will actually vote Leave and as a result, we will all be better informed and educated about the EU and our place in it - which may help when we do eventually need to throw a Brexit bomb into the room
- Boris has, predictably, tied himself up in a terrible mess of knots
- he will not be the next Tory leader and PM. He'll be a regular back on HIGNFY by the end of 2016 and thereafter
I expected a lack of clarity on the above to persist for many weeks yet, but I don't think that is going to be the case.
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
A charlatan without any strategic vision.
I've said he should have declared jointly with Gove on Friday.
Jamala's song "1944" was chosen to represent Ukraine at the contest in Stockholm in May, after a public vote on Ukrainian national TV.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35634736
Not quite "Making Your Mind Up" is it...
Irreversible privatisation if under EU jurisdiction.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk-nhs-leading-qc
I have a faint feeling that Labour might be sleeping at the wheel here, just as they were in Scotland.
Nor are you lawyers versed in the minutiae of EU law, and (perhaps even more important) the interaction between EU law and EU politics.
As I said earlier, don't take my word for it. This article is very well informed and represents my views exactly:
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-did-the-uk-achieve-in-its-eu-renegotiation/
Why are people only quoting a tory backbench MP who says he is voting leave but would rather like to rather actually stay in the EU.
On economic governance:
The mechanism does provide another means of political recourse to enforce such principles and as such is a shift in the status quo – though it doesn’t alter the voting mechanism and is not a full stop on a proposal.
It may be "the best that could be got". But it's a political fudge that changes nothing. The City will be reamed by the French.
You do realise that, don't you?
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
Take the current set of rules and regulations for financial instruments making its way through the EU, MiFID.
It has taken a long long time to negotiate, counter-negotiate, compromise and counter-compromise. You yourself said that you used to work with Kay Swinburne's boss. Perhaps you discussed it.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
And as for the EEA, I found the relevant paragraphs the other day when discussing with @Richard_Tyndall but in short, members of the EEA have no primary input into EU legislation although they can choose to accept it or not. They (EEA members) can sit on committees, on usually research and technology projects, if they have contributed to the project under discussion.
Cameron is no Churchill, Attlee, Gladstone or Disraeli but in the context of the managerial PM's of the past fifty years he has been a success and broadly conducted himself well as PM.
"Is he running a book on his successor, and can Labour MPs join in?"
I disagree that we have zero influence. In fact I know when it comes to MiFID we funnily enough were among the prime influencers in many of the measures that have come to be enacted.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
The momentum is now with Leave:
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/701822037455667200
Day 1 of his leadership bid - what did Boris cock up today?
MiFID applies to EU financial instruments.
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
But other countries are free to regulate their industries as they see fit. And then we decide how best to play in those markets. But the critical point is that MiFiD wouldn't apply directly to London-based firms.
Let's take compensation as an example. The decision to cap bonuses at 1x salary is awful. Not because I think bankers should be paid more (the vast majority of them should be paid less) but because the outcome has been increases in fixed compensation when what the industry really needs is highly variable compensation so it can adjust to volatility in the revenue line. And then they decided to extend it to fund managers and brokers, which have no structural implications, except to cripple London's competitiveness compared to non-European markets. This was done by MEPs with no interest in financial services - and no accountability for the impact on jobs - but who wanted to be able to tell their constituents that they had kicked the evil Anglo-Saxon speculators.
It's very simple: regulation needs to be implemented by people who know what they are doing and who are accountable for their actions. The current EU set up doesn't provide for that and, additionally, will create very asymmetric interests for the people setting the rules vs those (us) who have to abide by them
p.s. my comment on Kay was just to highlight that she isn't very bright and she's not very good at attention to detail. But I can't talk too much about that particular (not very happy) situation as there was bad behaviour on all sides.
Just one of the token PB pro-EUers popping my head around the door to say "Hi" so that you know we still exist.
More and more convinced this is going to be a terribly low turnout referendum. Perhaps sub 50%. Ground game is going to be significant.
In personal developments, if Cameron continues to poor such vitriol over positions taken by many sensible people in his own party after giving in to the fools in Europe on Friday, I might start actively campaigning for Leave.
Under the EEA we can't change the outcome, but we can innovate a response to it.
And, seriously, we could not develop a synthetic Deutsche Tel market in the UK when the underlying is being traded according to different rules in Frankfurt.
Can I bag the EuroEuro name?
Inside the EU, does MiFID apply to transactions USD transaction with a US customer, or is it only the US rulebook ?
If the answer is no what about the EU adding new regulations to "enhance" the US rulebook on that sort of trade by QMV.
On the Physical goods side of the economy manufacturers have to comply with EU standards even if they are more onerous than those of their non-EU customer, in addition to that customer's standards. Outside the EU we would only have to apply EU standards when shipping goods to EU customers.
Care to elaborate?
Disagree with me, if you want, but don't go round saying palpable nonsense like "Nor are you lawyers versed in the minutiae of EU law....."
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
Incidentally, I have an anecdotal suspicion that many southern lib dems have decamped to the Greens after the coalition. I saw an awful lot of Green ground activity in Dorset last year, and far less Lib Dem than ever before.
A Remain victory of over 60% would be fatal to our national interest.