F1: shame testing times aren't any use. Vettel is just 0.014s off Bottas, and Verstappen is 0.039s behind Vettel. If that reflected reality, the season would be rather competitive.
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgages
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?
If supply goes up and / or demand goes down, yes.
I though banks weren't going to lend against depreciating assets. Or is a tory induced drop in prices qualitatively better than a Corbyn induced drop?
A Corbyn-induced drop is underpinned by the notion that all property is theft. So yes...
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgages
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yes
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lending
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.
In this future Herr Selmayr is onto it.....
The entropy of the EU. Direction of travel is always towards Brussels.
More Europe and ever closer union are entropy minimising. Splitting and diversifying away from the centre increases entropy and is therefore the more natural state of the world.
Mr. Nabavi, old ground and water under the bridge (ahem) but I think a statement of principle from the EU is worth about as much as the French promise to re-examine the Common Agricultural Policy after Blair threw away half the rebate.
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgages
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yes
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lending
Correct, providing it’s done in a managed and controlled manner it should lead to house price deflation over time - rather than a house price crash.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgages
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yes
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.
Provided housing supply is increased and immigration is reduced overall housing should still be more affordable despite banks more restricted lending
Correct, providing it’s done in a managed and controlled manner it should lead to house price deflation over time - rather than a house price crash.
I think the ideal is that nominal prices continue to rise very gradually but real prices fall as the rate of increase is below inflation overall. Easier when inflation was higher of course.
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
Transgender model Munroe Bergdorf has stepped down from her role as an LGBT adviser to a Labour MP - after just over a week in the job. She says her decision is down to "endless attacks on her character" and "online abuse".
By attacks on her character, that would be pointing things like racist tweets...
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
"Sainsbury’s, one of the UK’s largest grocery store chains, says it will boost the minimum pay of its employees, but also scrap bonuses and paid breaks.
The group said in a statement that it will up the base rate of pay to £9.20 an hour from £8. Workers in Zones 1 and 2, compromising central London, will receive at least £9.80 an hour.
The decision comes ahead of the increase slated for April of this year in the National Living Wage to £7.83 an hour from £7.50."
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
"Sainsbury’s, one of the UK’s largest grocery store chains, says it will boost the minimum pay of its employees, but also scrap bonuses and paid breaks.
The group said in a statement that it will up the base rate of pay to £9.20 an hour from £8. Workers in Zones 1 and 2, compromising central London, will receive at least £9.80 an hour.
The decision comes ahead of the increase slated for April of this year in the National Living Wage to £7.83 an hour from £7.50."
I don’t if it wage pressures or to do with that supermarkets are busy restructuring the way their stores are staffed, stripping out lots of management roles / pay grades and asking other staff to take on those duties.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
Worse I should think... At least most people had actually heard of Kilroy-Silk. Despite all his recent travails I'm not sure anybody outside of political anoraks like us would have the first clue who Henry Bolton is...
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
There isn't an answer to it. There is no such thing as 100% certainty about the future. What happens if the Brexiteers' assurances about Brexit not crashing the economy prove to be illusory? There's ain't no legally-binding guarantees on that, are there?
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
Brexiters: never taking yes for an answer.
Given it was touted as Cameron's big (sole?) win in the renegotiation, I think it is valid to question how - and indeed if - that one win could have been delivered. "Fingers crossed" seems to be the answer.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
I don't think it was illusory. It was a momentous declaration for the EU to make, quite unprecedented. What I think would have happened was exactly what we wanted: that future EU integration would have centred on the Eurozone, and we'd have been the sort of associate members that we've always wanted to be. It was a tragedy that we threw away the prize just at the point where it was in reach.
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
To have been a true win, it would have required the EU acting with a good faith. A good faith that to date has been manufactured in such tiny quanties it makes Darmstadtium look like Iron...
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
Brexiters: never taking yes for an answer.
Given it was touted as Cameron's big (sole?) win in the renegotiation, I think it is valid to question how - and indeed if - that one win could have been delivered. "Fingers crossed" seems to be the answer.
It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?
It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?
The reason why I think they wouldn't have reneged on it isn't really the legal one, it's that it would have been less trouble for them to stick to it. They could happily play with building their Eurozone super-state without having us causing trouble all the time. Over time I think it would have become accepted that 'of course, the British won't want to be involved in XXX', where XXX is whatever the next stage would be. They'd conceded the principle - a big concession.
To be fair to him, he does seem to be getting a great response from those you might not expect. "Taking back our country from bad leadership" is really hitting a chord:
It was a formal negotiation, set to be validated at the next treaty change (IIRC), it had just been negotiated by the 28 heads of government and you say oh but they would have reneged.
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?
The reason why I think they wouldn't have reneged on it isn't really the legal one, it's that it would have been less trouble for them to stick to it. They could happily play with building their Eurozone super-state without having us causing trouble all the time. Over time I think it would have become accepted that 'of course, the British won't want to be involved in XXX', where XXX is whatever the next stage would be. They'd conceded the principle - a big concession.
Yes, and the other side of that coin is that we could have pointed at just about anything and said: Ever Closer Union - we're out.
Now of course we did that before (eg. the Fiscal Compact) but as we have all agreed, that ship has sailed.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
Whilst that's true, the situation is very unusual in that we start from 100% alignment of regulations, so what we're discussing is managing potential disputes over divergence.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
Yes, commercial aviation and shipping are two good examples where there’s a lot of regulation but traffic between countries is mostly unimpeded. The EU do maintain a list of banned airlines, but they are mainly from Africa and Indonesia and have abysmal safety records. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_carriers_banned_in_the_European_Union
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
How would Cameron have enforced that? As ever-closer union was implemented by qualified majority voting, rather than treaty change, what would have been his mechanism for rowing this back?
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
Indeed a vague phrase that we would be exempt to ever closer union without some concrete force as to how that would occur. A change to voting systems, a return of our pre-Lisbon vetoes, an explicit opt-out etc ... but all that was missing.
We were supposed to be exempt from the social charter originally then the Working Time Directive was put in place affecting us by labelling it as health and safety rather than social. Without any explicit powers the EU would simply not recognise anything going forwards as being Ever Closer Union and so we would not be able to opt out of it.
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
Why's it a big ask when its largely how things have worked in the EU for about 40 years?
Lately there's been a drive to harmonise everything but the principle worked fine for decades and ought to be able to be put back in place subject to some sort of disputes mechanism.
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
Sounds reasonable. How much more Cameron might have got is of course a matter of conjecture - Charles' French mates notwithstanding - but even his greatest supporters were underwhelmed by the deal.
No they weren't. Personally I was underwhelmed by the benefits part, but impressed by the protection he had won on Eurozone hegemony - by far the biggest issue, IMO - and the remarkable statement of principle that we would be exempt from ever-closer union.
And I would tend to agree with you that the deal was more consequential than those who rubbished it claimed - but it was nonetheless significantly less than we had been led to expect, and the lack of legally binding commitments, as opposed to statements of principle, allowed any doubts to be magnified.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
Whilst that's true, the situation is very unusual in that we start from 100% alignment of regulations, so what we're discussing is managing potential disputes over divergence.
That raises the question, why are we diverging? Arguably it's worse. If you are converging, it's easier to accept two parties for historical reasons achieved the same effect in different ways. Your point is valid for the part that stays the same. The part we want to change is the problem.
Aviation recognises mutual standards: the FAA recognises EASA and vice-versa, and in general national airworthiness authorities mutually recognise competence (with some exceptions, as you might expect).
We are talking about the "Cassis de Dijon principle". A product that is imported from another country, where it meets the standards of that country, is legal in your country even though it doesn't meet your domestic standards and couldn't be produced domestically. Australia and New Zealand apply the Cassis de Dijon principle. Switzerland applies the principle unilaterally with products from the EU. It doesn't apply to NAFTA for instance. Canadians exporting to the USA have to meet US standards and vice versa. The only requirement is of non discrimination. The US can't discriminate against Canadian products that meet its own standards.
No I understand that.
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
I fear we are slightly talking past each other. My point is that decentralised product regulation, what Fraser Nelson calls "proper EU reform", requires you to accept products from another country that would otherwise be illegal in yours. The so called "Cassis de Dijon principle". That's a big ask, which requires a high degree of trust. Almost no-one does it.
Why's it a big ask when its largely how things have worked in the EU for about 40 years?
Lately there's been a drive to harmonise everything but the principle worked fine for decades and ought to be able to be put back in place subject to some sort of disputes mechanism.
Because thanks to common rules and ECJ jurisdiction, EU states have near 100% product alignment. Cassis de Dijon is rare.
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.
Indeed but the point is that the principle is still alive so there's no reason we can't sign a trade deal backed up by that principle.
Europe plans special tax for Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon
Bruno Le Maire, France's minister for the economy, has revealed that a plan to levy a special tax on Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon will soon be revealed by European authorities.
Le Maire told French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche "A European directive will be unveiled in the coming weeks, the minister reveals, and it will mark a considerable step forward."
The minister told the paper that a tax of between two and six per cent has been considered, with the proposal to be "closer to two than six."
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.
Indeed but the point is that the principle is still alive so there's no reason we can't sign a trade deal backed up by that principle.
Unless we aim for 100% convergence, difficult in practice. 100% convergence also in practice means us taking EU rule changes on a do as you are told basis. I rate the chances of that outcome relatively high, incidentally.
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.
So an independent Scotland would lose the right to charge english students fees ?
Incidentally the Cassis de Dijon principle is still in effect in the EU.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
EU law doesn't prevent you from discriminating against your OWN products and people. A subtle but important point of law. That's why foreign spouses of UK citizens can be denied residence but wives of EU citizens can't. Also why Scotland can charge university fees to English students, but not German ones.
So an independent Scotland would lose the right to charge english students fees ?
Comments
I suspect in practice it would have proved to be utterly illusory.
By attacks on her character, that would be pointing things like racist tweets...
But it's water under the bridge. The great British public wanted (not unreasonably) to prioritise controlling the unacceptably high levels of immigration as the key issue. I don't blame them for that, it was Leave's best argument, indeed the only really potent one. So we need to respect that whilst minimising the economic damage.
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/970965227339689984
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/970982630865895424
https://www.ft.com/content/6e45347c-212c-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
"Sainsbury’s, one of the UK’s largest grocery store chains, says it will boost the minimum pay of its employees, but also scrap bonuses and paid breaks.
The group said in a statement that it will up the base rate of pay to £9.20 an hour from £8. Workers in Zones 1 and 2, compromising central London, will receive at least £9.80 an hour.
The decision comes ahead of the increase slated for April of this year in the National Living Wage to £7.83 an hour from £7.50."
There still seems to be no answer to "what happened if the pledge on exemption from ever-closer union proved to be illusory?" I suspect the EU would have taken their chances that we would not go for a second Referendum - and would have ploughed on regardless. As is their proven track record.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43301773
https://mobile.twitter.com/Telegraph/status/970724373467316224/photo/1
However, an aircraft maintained in Thailand (say) can happily land in the UK, although the maintainer would not meet all requirements of the CAA. The assumption is basically that "although they do things differently, they are still competent enough to ensure safety". Allowing 250 tonnes of metal to legally fly into your airspace even though does not meet your domestic standards seems to meet the CdD principal admirably.
Any ideas on when Italy might have its new government?
Why on earth are we negotiating with them now if we have so little faith in them honouring the outcome and this time we won't even be members?
https://twitter.com/suzanne_khall/status/970962251661434880
https://twitter.com/eaukot?lang=en
Now of course we did that before (eg. the Fiscal Compact) but as we have all agreed, that ship has sailed.
We were supposed to be exempt from the social charter originally then the Working Time Directive was put in place affecting us by labelling it as health and safety rather than social. Without any explicit powers the EU would simply not recognise anything going forwards as being Ever Closer Union and so we would not be able to opt out of it.
Lately there's been a drive to harmonise everything but the principle worked fine for decades and ought to be able to be put back in place subject to some sort of disputes mechanism.
To give a single example beer in Germany has been for now more than five centuries been subject to the German Purity Laws. Many non-German beers contain ingredients that would be illegal in Germany but they can still be brewed elsewhere in the EU and then legally marketed and sold in Germany as beer despite the fact that brewing it that way in Germany would be illegal.
And I would tend to agree with you that the deal was more consequential than those who rubbished it claimed - but it was nonetheless significantly less than we had been led to expect, and the lack of legally binding commitments, as opposed to statements of principle, allowed any doubts to be magnified.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/north-korea-promises-not-use-nuclear-weapons-against-south-border/
Pyongyang had indicated that it would not need to keep its nuclear weapons if military threats against the country are resolved and it receives a credible security guarantee, said the South Korean envoy.
Possible peace in Korea ?
Get a grip.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/970684594193403904?s=19
Bruno Le Maire, France's minister for the economy, has revealed that a plan to levy a special tax on Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon will soon be revealed by European authorities.
Le Maire told French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche "A European directive will be unveiled in the coming weeks, the minister reveals, and it will mark a considerable step forward."
The minister told the paper that a tax of between two and six per cent has been considered, with the proposal to be "closer to two than six."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/europe_plans_special_tax_for_google_apple_facebook_and_amazon/
Like this.
https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/970387413620047872
Worker at canning factory supplying Monster energy drinks is marched off premises after URINATING in an empty can
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467823/Coca-Cola-factory-worker-sacked-urinating-can.html
Next decade it will be about elective amputation so you can identify as a disabled person.
Come the 2030s it will be offensive to assume that a being is a human and not a dog or a cross between a monkey and a meerkat.
"I wasn't born to have two legs and walk" - coming soon.
Saves the embarrassment perhaps...
Would be pleasing to see the Russian ultra-nationalists given both a literal and metaphorical bloody nose.
Must be a very difficult issue for parents and medical services.