No member state would deny the UK access to core EU programmes where its participation makes sense both in terms of financial contribution and expertise. This includes satellites and security.
However the EU institutions are so minded to cut off Member States' nose to spite the UK's face.
Why don't they let the US in on that basis?
Ummm...
Have the US ever applied to join Galileo?
On security matters more generally, the US and EU have wide information sharing provisions as befits a state which (Donald Trump aside) is an important partner.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless. Far better to invest a lot more than that is public housebuilding, which would better address much the same problem - and which at current borrowing rates could in any event be a profitable investment.
One of his brains is an idiot.
Should the older generation make a larger tax contribution to their care ? Probably.
Agreed, a 25 year old with a £10 million trust fund who is an investment banker would get the dividend while an 80 year old on the state pension would not.
Bursaries at universities for those who need them and more affordable houses being built and the over 65s still in work paying NI are far more effective ideas
“The idea that Conservatives would legislate a race to the bottom is a myth and no one really believes it, even if some Tories have helped create it.
“The real fear is state subsidies under a Jeremy Corbyn government.
“British policy has remained unchanged for generations but now there is a real chance of a left-wing government reversing it. We have to protect ourselves and the single market.”
Says more than they intended
“Darn voters voted for something we don’t like. How can we make sure they don’t get it”
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
Forget the idea of rebaselining council tax, but the idea of giving under 25s £10k for a house deposit (possibly means tested) and for that alone isn't a bad one. I'd say the Government will match you pound for pound up to £10k of whatever you've saved by the age of 25.
At the moment this happens anyway, but only from middle/ upper-middle class families. Giving the same to expand home ownership seems a sound strategic move for the Conservatives to me.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless. Far better to invest a lot more than that is public housebuilding, which would better address much the same problem - and which at current borrowing rates could in any event be a profitable investment.
One of his brains is an idiot.
Should the older generation make a larger tax contribution to their care ? Probably.
Agreed, a 25 year old with a £10 million trust fund who is an investment banker would get the dividend while an 80 year old on the state pension would not.
Bursaries at universities for those who need them and more affordable houses being built and the over 65s still in work paying NI are far more effective ideas
Didn't Osborne ditch Brown's gift to the young at age 18? Can't remember the exact name or details.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless. Far better to invest a lot more than that is public housebuilding, which would better address much the same problem - and which at current borrowing rates could in any event be a profitable investment.
One of his brains is an idiot.
Should the older generation make a larger tax contribution to their care ? Probably.
Another way of incentivising it could be to offer full IHT relief on the estate of any older person who gifts up to £20k, say, to a person aged under 30 for the purposes of buying their own home.
In other words, carrot for intergenerational redistribution better than stick.
Anyway for anyone who reads FS Focus, the magazine for Chartered Accountants (I know, I know, it's not Vogue or, indeed, PB - but you have to start somewhere) you will find a column by yours truly. Or you can apply to me in the usual way.
(And not a word about Corbyn, I promise!!)
Meanwhile I assume Brexit is still being cocked up in new and wonderful ways.......
If the Speaker's chair became empty, would Jacob Rees-Mogg go for it or would he hold out for advancement within the Conservative party? What does the brains trust think?
Speaker. He doesn’t want to be a normal politician
Extraordinary attack on Greg Clark from Nigel Lawson, calling him economically illiterate and saying that his judgement has been warped by being emotionally tied to the EU.
On Lewisham East, much depends on the candidate selected by Labour (for determining second place, at least). Since Lewisham Labour has been historically pragmatic, I'd have thought there would be more chance of an effective Green insurgent campaign against a non-Momentumite than a Lib Dem insurgent campaign against a Momentumite.
If the Speaker's chair became empty, would Jacob Rees-Mogg go for it or would he hold out for advancement within the Conservative party? What does the brains trust think?
Speaker. He doesn’t want to be a normal politician
And he can dress up in 18th century clothes as Speaker.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless. Far better to invest a lot more than that is public housebuilding, which would better address much the same problem - and which at current borrowing rates could in any event be a profitable investment.
One of his brains is an idiot.
Should the older generation make a larger tax contribution to their care ? Probably.
Agreed, a 25 year old with a £10 million trust fund who is an investment banker would get the dividend while an 80 year old on the state pension would not.
Bursaries at universities for those who need them and more affordable houses being built and the over 65s still in work paying NI are far more effective ideas
Didn't Osborne ditch Brown's gift to the young at age 18? Can't remember the exact name or details.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless. Far better to invest a lot more than that is public housebuilding, which would better address much the same problem - and which at current borrowing rates could in any event be a profitable investment.
One of his brains is an idiot.
Should the older generation make a larger tax contribution to their care ? Probably.
Another way of incentivising it could be to offer full IHT relief on the estate of any older person who gifts up to £20k, say, to a person aged under 30 for the purposes of buying their own home.
In other words, carrot for intergenerational redistribution better than stick.
Extraordinary attack on Greg Clark from Nigel Lawson, calling him economically illiterate and saying that his judgement has been warped by being emotionally tied to the EU.
Why doesn't Lawson just p*** off and stay in France.
Based on nothing other than them coming second in the locals and my gut being to bet against the hype - I suspect yes. Anyone want a straight up and down bet on evens on it? I'd go to £50.
“Everyone has to pay NI. The country you retire in is responsible, I believe, for paying you the pension accrued in any EU member state you have previously worked in”
Sorry Pulpstar this is just plain wrong - I will get my UK pension paid by the UK, it won’t be somehow converted to a Danish one- I contribute to,but will not receive, a Danish state pension unless I get citizenship and they change the rules on years of contributions (as likely as SeanT being elected Pope)
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
Ian Dunt - @IanDunt: You couldn't ask for a more perfect encapsulation of the pointlessness of Brexit than ham-faced cretin Gavin Williamson saying we should build our own Galileo system.
Ian Dunt - @IanDunt: He wants to spend countless millions replicating a project we are already invested in. He calls it... you guessed it... "rediscovering our bulldog spirit".
And that is the fault of the EU.
More seriously, this kind of cooperation makes perfect sense. It was the political stuff that didn’t work for the U.K.
There is no real need for Galileo at all, it's a white elephant.
Commercially GPS as-is works well enough for most uses, and it's not a fixed system, there is a whole series of upgrades in deployment which will satisfy many other applications.
Further into the future there will be so many satellites in LEO that dedicated systems for navigation will be functionally redundant for most common uses.
On a security level being entirely dependent on the goodwill of the US appears shortsighted
Boris is an arse. I am sick of his shenanigans. I don't know who is right on the Customs Union but Boris is doing what is best for his career not what is best for the country. If the Tories are stupid enough to put him in power they deserve to be slaughtered.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Cutting out all of the context in s quote is a very unattractive habit.
A security partnership makes sense for both sides. But it can’t just be one way. Galileo could - and should - be part of it
Wanting political cooperation without politics is incoherent. It's almost like your preferred Brexit would be to become sui juris common law members of the EU without signing any pesky treaties.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
Something's got to give with Boris. Possibilities:
1) Theresa withdraws the Customs Partnership and Boris claims victory. (I can't see that happening - not Theresa's style.)
2) Customs Partnership stays and Boris resigns in a fit of pique.
3) Customs Partnership stays but with 'amendments' addressing 'Boris's concerns'. (i.e. it isn't amended at all but Boris can claim some kind of victory without quitting.)
Boris is an arse. I am sick of his shenanigans. I don't know who is right on the Customs Union but Boris is doing what is best for his career not what is best for the country. If the Tories are stupid enough to put him in power they deserve to be slaughtered.
He won't be in power much at all if he can't get the vote through Parliment, which he would probably struggle to do.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals of freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
I don't think it would necessarily add to the existing admin overhead: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/importing-goods-from-outside-the-eu if sensible mechanisms were developed. There are already schemes for deferred payments and so on that could be enhanced.
3) Customs Partnership stays but with 'amendments' addressing 'Boris's concerns'. (i.e. it isn't amended at all but Boris can claim some kind of victory without quitting.)
I think 3 is most likely.
'Partnership' sounds a bit too much like mutual responsibility. To placate Boris it should be renamed as something dynamic and buccaneering. How about a customs 'initiative', or a customs 'innovation scheme'?
I think Davis and Fox will go too. Theresa May's government is about to collapse.
No-one is going anywhere.* May will simply push this conversation down the road again. If there’s one thing we know it’s that this government is committed to self preservation above principle - or the good of the country - above all.
*Having said that I said something similar about 8 hours before Amber Rudd resigned.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Boris is an arse. I am sick of his shenanigans. I don't know who is right on the Customs Union but Boris is doing what is best for his career not what is best for the country. If the Tories are stupid enough to put him in power they deserve to be slaughtered.
I entirely agree...... there was also that crass tweet after the local elections too which was as unsubtle as it gets.
Part of my ongoing tory membership is to at least have a vote against Boris and other headbangers when the time comes - sort of SO tactics but re the blue team.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
I think Davis and Fox will go too. Theresa May's government is about to collapse.
No-one is going anywhere.* May will simply push this conversation down the road again. If there’s one thing we know it’s that this government is committed to self preservation above principle - or the good of the country - above all.
*Having said that I said something similar about 8 hours before Amber Rudd resigned.
To be fair, she is having to do a very very tricky balancing act. There might 'not' be a solution to in or out of the customs union either way.
"Two Brains" (And No Sense) Willetts coming up with another cunning plan to hit Con voters?
Any sign of Letwin's fingerprints on this one?
Keep Willetts well away from making government policy, the man will hit the Tory vote.
On radio 5 this morning, the idea went down like a bucket of sick and the last time I mentioned that was the tory manifesto for the last GE.
The £10k dividend for 25 year-olds is a bloody stupid idea - untargeted/means tested, discriminating against those just a bit too old (but suffering from exactly the same plight), and liable to be blown by the feckless.
From the report:
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
I don't think Patrick Minford's ignorance can be blamed on the EU.
and in each case she cannot see the bad consequences of the plan, she just thinks it's a good wheeze.
Very disappointing from a Conservative PM.
Now you know I'm not Theresa's biggest fan but Cameron has to take his fair share of the responsibility for Hostile Environment and Porn Registration - As both policies were developed and in the case of the hostile environment, implemented, under his government.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
It depends on what exactly it means.
If it is effectively a Customs Union along the lines of the Turkish deal, it is rubbish because it allows third party countries who have an FTA with the EU to export into your country tariff free via the Single Market whilst you do not share reciprocal rights to export to them.
If it is the Customs Arrangement as outlined by May then that is not the case and it seems the only valid objection (shared by the EU and the Eurosceptics) is that it is complex and unworkable.
But whatever the case, one thing is certain is that it will not solve the Irish Border issue since that will still be affected by not being in the Single Market. It is a complete red herring to say sorting out the customs arrangements will solve the border issue.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Missing several hundred years context of Irish history. Did you really mean your vote to re-animate one of the most poisonous conflicts of recent and not so recent years right on our doorstep?
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Having spoken to a previous senior executive for a house builder about this, their opinion was that there should be a development land tax, as the land value is where the huge unearned gain comes from. A house builder has significant risks in deploying capital in the development process, but a land owner can have a huge windfall just by getting planning approval for their farmland. This benefits those who are significant land owners who have time and money to push to move their land into development plans, and not the small scale farmers, most of whom just want to carry on farming
and in each case she cannot see the bad consequences of the plan, she just thinks it's a good wheeze.
Very disappointing from a Conservative PM.
Now you know I'm not Theresa's biggest fan but Cameron has to take his fair share of the responsibility for Hostile Environment and Porn Registration - As both policies were developed and in the case of the hostile environment, implemented, under his government.
Yes, but as Home Secretary TMay was responsible for developing and delivering them.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU countries aren't likely to be keen on a trade deal if it involves the importer paying the full EU tariff at entry and potentially claiming back some difference between the EU and UK tariffs. Also in practice, regulatory divergence from the EU would be an enormous hassle.
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Missing several hundred years context of Irish history. Did you really mean your vote to re-animate one of the most poisonous conflicts of recent and not so recent years right on our doorstep?
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
I think you'll find Leo Varadkar does and at some point it'll come back and bite him on the arse
I spent the weekend in Portstewart, from which you can easily see Donegal. On a clear day, you can also just make out Islay.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Spot on, Mr Tyndall. It is greedy Tories wanting even less involvement from the public over what happens to their area.
And I agree with most of your points too, Mr Pointer. How about dealing with family trusts and the tax breaks they give to the very wealthy? Would it not be a god idea to tax their gains on the basis of the income tax level of the beneficiaries? That would surely bring in many millions.
I spent the weekend in Portstewart, from which you can easily see Donegal. On a clear day, you can also just make out Islay.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
Cutting out all of the context in s quote is a very unattractive habit.
A security partnership makes sense for both sides. But it can’t just be one way. Galileo could - and should - be part of it
Wanting political cooperation without politics is incoherent. It's almost like your preferred Brexit would be to become sui juris common law members of the EU without signing any pesky treaties.
No. You can have partnership on specific items.
It was QMV and the political direction of travel that was an issue for me.
and in each case she cannot see the bad consequences of the plan, she just thinks it's a good wheeze.
Very disappointing from a Conservative PM.
It is not just that Theresa May cannot see any down side -- after all, nor could George Osborne which is why we got the omnishambles budget full of eminently sensible measures put up by the Treasury that he and the Cameroons did not realise targeted Conservative supporters. The real problem is that the Prime Minister has not taken steps to mitigate this weakness by appointing a Whitelaw-type figure as devil's advocate, or is that what the cabinet is for?
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Having spoken to a previous senior executive for a house builder about this, their opinion was that there should be a development land tax, as the land value is where the huge unearned gain comes from. A house builder has significant risks in deploying capital in the development process, but a land owner can have a huge windfall just by getting planning approval for their farmland. This benefits those who are significant land owners who have time and money to push to move their land into development plans, and not the small scale farmers, most of whom just want to carry on farming
That again seems a bit of a red herring as the landowner would pay capital gains tax on the sale of the land to the developer at 28%. And if they have a profits option on the sale and subsequent development they would pay 45% on any further monies coming back at the end of the development.
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
I spent the weekend in Portstewart, from which you can easily see Donegal. On a clear day, you can also just make out Islay.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
were you marching at the weekend ?
You're so 20th century. It's all about the gay cakes:
The GP doesn’t have the expertise to add to the imaging assessment so there is no benefit
The person qualified to diagnose the need for, and request, the image, is not qualified, in your view, to see the image...
The person qualified to see the image, in your view, doesn't need to verify the request.
I don't think that is a good way of working.
Yes. They are different skills for different purposes.
The GP is identifying it’s possibly more than a simple sprain. The imaging expert takes that on trust and reviews the image. The GP could spend time looking at the images but won’t change the answer so it’s not efficient
I spent the weekend in Portstewart, from which you can easily see Donegal. On a clear day, you can also just make out Islay.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
Yesterday I was in my garden, and I could see a garden next door on one side, and a garden on the other side too.
In the past, these three locations were all part of the same field, and prior to that the same forest.
You could easily imagine circumstances where someone builds an apartment building in the future and they are all covered by it.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of property boundaries.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
Clearly you travel around the country with your eyes closed. Practically every village has had new developments built onto them in the last decade.
Indeed there has been so much village development that in areas like Newark and Sherwood they have decided to try and concentrate building around the main towns.
Being intimately involved with the planning process (I study every application in two districts for possible archaeological impact) I can assure you that the system has significantly eased in favour of the developer over the last decade.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU coun this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Missing several hundred years context of Irish history. Did you really mean your vote to re-animate one of the most poisonous conflicts of recent and not so recent years right on our doorstep?
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
I think you'll find Leo Varadkar does and at some point it'll come back and bite him on the arse
Not at all - He is just relating the UK's cakeist desire to the reality that his country faces.
As his deputy put it: “The problem here is the British government’s stated position [in December], and still now, is they want to make sure there is no border infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland, they don’t want trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market – and those things are simply not compatible."
Cutting out all of the context in s quote is a very unattractive habit.
A security partnership makes sense for both sides. But it can’t just be one way. Galileo could - and should - be part of it
Wanting political cooperation without politics is incoherent. It's almost like your preferred Brexit would be to become sui juris common law members of the EU without signing any pesky treaties.
No. You can have partnership on specific items.
It was QMV and the political direction of travel that was an issue for me.
What a shame our then PM didn't manage to get an opt-out from that latter.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
Clearly you travel around the country with your eyes closed. Practically every village has had new developments built onto them in the last decade.
Indeed there has been so much village development that in areas like Newark and Sherwood they have decided to try and concentrate building around the main towns.
Being intimately involved with the planning process (I study every application in two districts for possible archaeological impact) I can assure you that the system has significantly eased in favour of the developer over the last decade.
But isn’t the problem that the planning process can still be quite unpredictable and time consuming? Thus, you have to be a monopolistic house builder with huge land banks (and cookie cutter developments) to take part in the “market”.
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
Surely better to tackle some of the fundamentals causing the generational imbalance than try to put a sticking plaster over it... E.g. remove the triple-lock, tackle housing costs (relax planning, allow/require local authorities to invest in housing), shift from taxing income and spend to taxing wealth.
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
Happens quite often sadly or happily depending on your point of view.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
Clearly you travel around the country with your eyes closed. Practically every village has had new developments built onto them in the last decade.
Indeed there has been so much village development that in areas like Newark and Sherwood they have decided to try and concentrate building around the main towns.
Being intimately involved with the planning process (I study every application in two districts for possible archaeological impact) I can assure you that the system has significantly eased in favour of the developer over the last decade.
But isn’t the problem that the planning process can still be quite unpredictable and time consuming? Thus, you have to be a monopolistic house builder with huge land banks (and cookie cutter developments) to take part in the “market”.
Our self-build market barely exists.
This is a subject I have been planning on writing a thread header on for some time. Once again it is an area where we cold learn great lessons from Europe. In the Netherlands Self builds account for 30% of all new builds. In Belgium it is 60%. In the UK it is 10% and falling.
The land banking issue is a massive problem and I think paying Council Tax on undeveloped land which has outline planning permission would definitely be a good way to go.
Hahaha. Try applying for permission to build on the edge of a village!
Clearly you travel around the country with your eyes closed. Practically every village has had new developments built onto them in the last decade.
Indeed there has been so much village development that in areas like Newark and Sherwood they have decided to try and concentrate building around the main towns.
Being intimately involved with the planning process (I study every application in two districts for possible archaeological impact) I can assure you that the system has significantly eased in favour of the developer over the last decade.
But isn’t the problem that the planning process can still be quite unpredictable and time consuming? Thus, you have to be a monopolistic house builder with huge land banks (and cookie cutter developments) to take part in the “market”.
Our self-build market barely exists.
Not really. You can apply for planning permission to build, say X houses and as long as the proposed development complies with both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, it is likely to get the go-ahead.
I spent the weekend in Portstewart, from which you can easily see Donegal. On a clear day, you can also just make out Islay.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
were you marching at the weekend ?
You're so 20th century. It's all about the gay cakes:
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU coun this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Missing several hundred years context of Irish history. Did you really mean your vote to re-animate one of the most poisonous conflicts of recent and not so recent years right on our doorstep?
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
I think you'll find Leo Varadkar does and at some point it'll come back and bite him on the arse
Not at all - He is just relating the UK's cakeist desire to the reality that his country faces.
As his deputy put it: “The problem here is the British government’s stated position [in December], and still now, is they want to make sure there is no border infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland, they don’t want trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market – and those things are simply not compatible."
His predecessor was working with the British Government to come up with technological solutions. It is Varadkar who put the stop to that.
Cutting out all of the context in s quote is a very unattractive habit.
A security partnership makes sense for both sides. But it can’t just be one way. Galileo could - and should - be part of it
Wanting political cooperation without politics is incoherent. It's almost like your preferred Brexit would be to become sui juris common law members of the EU without signing any pesky treaties.
No. You can have partnership on specific items.
It was QMV and the political direction of travel that was an issue for me.
What a shame our then PM didn't manage to get an opt-out from that latter.
Could someone explain how a "customs partnership" arrangement limits our ability to negotiate trade deals? This argument doesn't make sense to me. The "customs partnership" approach seems to be an administrative arrangement to avoid friction in trade to EU and a hard border with Ireland. It doesn't restrict the terms of any trade between the UK and other countries outsied EU. Am I missing something?
The argument is that non-EU coun this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
Patrick Minford thought the Irish border wasn't a problem because they already have passport checks there...
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making. It is a device to twist the "negotiations" in Brussel's favour. It also reveals Brussel's hostile attitude.
Missing several hundred years context of Irish history. Did you really mean your vote to re-animate one of the most poisonous conflicts of recent and not so recent years right on our doorstep?
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
I think you'll find Leo Varadkar does and at some point it'll come back and bite him on the arse
Not at all - He is just relating the UK's cakeist desire to the reality that his country faces.
As his deputy put it: “The problem here is the British government’s stated position [in December], and still now, is they want to make sure there is no border infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland, they don’t want trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market – and those things are simply not compatible."
if you honestly think that's what people up north think youre mad.
LV should have just let the sleeping dogs lie, he's on a slippery slope
It is a complete myth that the current planning system prevents house building. The system has already been radically reformed and eased in favour of the developer (overly so as far as protection of the environment or archaeology is concerned). The main areas of planning that developers object to now are the requirement to fund amenities and services as part of their developments. They want to be able to build where they like and then walk away leaving estates with no schools, sports or social facilities.
Having spoken to a previous senior executive for a house builder about this, their opinion was that there should be a development land tax, as the land value is where the huge unearned gain comes from. A house builder has significant risks in deploying capital in the development process, but a land owner can have a huge windfall just by getting planning approval for their farmland. This benefits those who are significant land owners who have time and money to push to move their land into development plans, and not the small scale farmers, most of whom just want to carry on farming
That again seems a bit of a red herring as the landowner would pay capital gains tax on the sale of the land to the developer at 28%. And if they have a profits option on the sale and subsequent development they would pay 45% on any further monies coming back at the end of the development.
I agree in principle, but when totally unearned the value of your farmland goes from around £10,000 an acre to £1 million an acre, the 28% on that 990,000.00 doesn't seem too bad for the landowner - certainly the house builder has to do much more and at greater risk to make £712,800.
Again this is often driven as much by the ability of the landowner to lobby the relevant people, I.e be able to pay consultants, or to 'know' the right sort of people.
Comments
TSE may well like this but perhaps not to be listened to in the office... Fan Denial from Paddy Power re Stoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQRczG9Q-v8
On security matters more generally, the US and EU have wide information sharing provisions as befits a state which (Donald Trump aside) is an important partner.
'Run Boris run'.
Bursaries at universities for those who need them and more affordable houses being built and the over 65s still in work paying NI are far more effective ideas
“Darn voters voted for something we don’t like. How can we make sure they don’t get it”
At the moment this happens anyway, but only from middle/ upper-middle class families. Giving the same to expand home ownership seems a sound strategic move for the Conservatives to me.
More interesting will be if the Tories can keep 2nd place
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
In other words, carrot for intergenerational redistribution better than stick.
Anyway for anyone who reads FS Focus, the magazine for Chartered Accountants (I know, I know, it's not Vogue or, indeed, PB - but you have to start somewhere) you will find a column by yours truly. Or you can apply to me in the usual way.
(And not a word about Corbyn, I promise!!)
Meanwhile I assume Brexit is still being cocked up in new and wonderful ways.......
Ah well. Back to the sunshine.
But Labour should win by miles anyway.
Lab - 51%
Con - 17%
Grn - 15%
LD - 13%
Kip - 1%
Oth - 3%
https://ufile.io/4oe02
Sorry Pulpstar this is just plain wrong - I will get my UK pension paid by the UK, it won’t be somehow converted to a Danish one- I contribute to,but will not receive, a Danish state pension unless I get citizenship and they change the rules on years of contributions (as likely as SeanT being elected Pope)
#idontwannatalkaboutit
"- Grants would sit in government-approved interest-bearing savings accounts, and could be spent at a time of their recipients’ choosing on any combination of four permitted uses: education and training (including paying off tuition fee debt), deposits for house rental or purchase, pension saving, or the start-up costs of new businesses being supported through recognised entrepreneurship schemes
- During the transition period, to reflect the experience of cohorts who entered the labour market around the time of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the policy would pay smaller amounts to cohorts aged over 25.
- The citizen’s inheritance would be funded primarily by ending the current inheritance tax system and replacing it with a new lifetime receipts tax,
- Citizen’s inheritances would count as part of their recipients’ £125,000 lifetime receipts tax allowances, This would help ensure the policy is progressive, while bringing forward the timing of inheritances for those due to receive money later in life."
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2018/05/The-new-wealth-of-our-nation.pdf
(The GP adds bugger all to this equation)
Boris is right - this is a bonkers scheme. There's a strong argument for a customs union on economic grounds (especially for the car manufacturing sector), but this mish-mash scheme offers little advantage over a customs union in terms of trade deals or freeing ourselves from EU regulation; it simply adds an enormously complicated administrative layer.
Alternatively, if we don't want a customs union then we should go for Canada++ and accept the economic hit.
A security partnership makes sense for both sides. But it can’t just be one way. Galileo could - and should - be part of it
It's a view, I guess.
Boris is an arse. I am sick of his shenanigans. I don't know who is right on the Customs Union but Boris is doing what is best for his career not what is best for the country. If the Tories are stupid enough to put him in power they deserve to be slaughtered.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/993828701753303041
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/993829945846714368
1) Theresa withdraws the Customs Partnership and Boris claims victory. (I can't see that happening - not Theresa's style.)
2) Customs Partnership stays and Boris resigns in a fit of pique.
3) Customs Partnership stays but with 'amendments' addressing 'Boris's concerns'. (i.e. it isn't amended at all but Boris can claim some kind of victory without quitting.)
I think 3 is most likely.
The GP can see 6.
For the examination of imaging data the specialist’s time is better used reviewing X-rays not interacting with patients
The GP doesn’t have the expertise to add to the imaging assessment so there is no benefit - but a cost and a risk - to sending him the images
May will simply push this conversation down the road again. If there’s one thing we know it’s that this government is committed to self preservation above principle - or the good of the country - above all.
*Having said that I said something similar about 8 hours before Amber Rudd resigned.
The person qualified to see the image, in your view, doesn't need to verify the request.
I don't think that is a good way of working.
By the way Patrick Minford also supports Canada+.
Part of my ongoing tory membership is to at least have a vote against Boris and other headbangers when the time comes - sort of SO tactics but re the blue team.
So far from May we have had:
* Granny Tax (2017 GE)
* Porn Registration
* Hostile Environment (immigration)
* Customs Partnership
and in each case she cannot see the bad consequences of the plan, she just thinks it's a good wheeze.
Very disappointing from a Conservative PM.
If it is effectively a Customs Union along the lines of the Turkish deal, it is rubbish because it allows third party countries who have an FTA with the EU to export into your country tariff free via the Single Market whilst you do not share reciprocal rights to export to them.
If it is the Customs Arrangement as outlined by May then that is not the case and it seems the only valid objection (shared by the EU and the Eurosceptics) is that it is complex and unworkable.
But whatever the case, one thing is certain is that it will not solve the Irish Border issue since that will still be affected by not being in the Single Market. It is a complete red herring to say sorting out the customs arrangements will solve the border issue.
Ireland, as a member, can expect support from the EU. Who'd a thought it?
No one in their right minds, except perhaps you, wants to fuck with the situation as it exists in Ireland/NI post GFA.
Having spoken to a previous senior executive for a house builder about this, their opinion was that there should be a development land tax, as the land value is where the huge unearned gain comes from. A house builder has significant risks in deploying capital in the development process, but a land owner can have a huge windfall just by getting planning approval for their farmland. This benefits those who are significant land owners who have time and money to push to move their land into development plans, and not the small scale farmers, most of whom just want to carry on farming
Yes, but as Home Secretary TMay was responsible for developing and delivering them.
In the past, these three locations were all part of a single state. Now they are in two sovereign states. You could easily imagine circumstances where they are in three sovereign states in the not-too-distant future. Or two, differently configured.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of borders.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/993808619295690756
And I agree with most of your points too, Mr Pointer. How about dealing with family trusts and the tax breaks they give to the very wealthy? Would it not be a god idea to tax their gains on the basis of the income tax level of the beneficiaries? That would surely bring in many millions.
It was QMV and the political direction of travel that was an issue for me.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/991244588496146434
The GP is identifying it’s possibly more than a simple sprain. The imaging expert takes that on trust and reviews the image. The GP could spend time looking at the images but won’t change the answer so it’s not efficient
Specialisation of labour is abasic concept
Yesterday I was in my garden, and I could see a garden next door on one side, and a garden on the other side too.
In the past, these three locations were all part of the same field, and prior to that the same forest.
You could easily imagine circumstances where someone builds an apartment building in the future and they are all covered by it.
It does make you reflect on the arbitrariness of property boundaries.
Indeed there has been so much village development that in areas like Newark and Sherwood they have decided to try and concentrate building around the main towns.
Being intimately involved with the planning process (I study every application in two districts for possible archaeological impact) I can assure you that the system has significantly eased in favour of the developer over the last decade.
As his deputy put it:
“The problem here is the British government’s stated position [in December], and still now, is they want to make sure there is no border infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland, they don’t want trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market – and those things are simply not compatible."
Our self-build market barely exists.
The land banking issue is a massive problem and I think paying Council Tax on undeveloped land which has outline planning permission would definitely be a good way to go.
you could star the first gay lodge
LV should have just let the sleeping dogs lie, he's on a slippery slope
Again this is often driven as much by the ability of the landowner to lobby the relevant people, I.e be able to pay consultants, or to 'know' the right sort of people.