The BBC correspondence saying "Mugabe did many good things, but"....sorry you what...its a bit like saying Hitler was doing fine until he went a bit mad....
There was a serious book written called "How Green Were the Nazis?"
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Will the Irish be able to afford it once the EU has fined them for their Apple deal? I think we might effectively end up liable for that fine.
Of course, they can. All they have to do is not make Apple pay the tax they should have.
What's Apple's incentive to stay based in Ireland after that?
So Tax dodging companies can do whatever they like. What Ireland did is illegal. Not collecting taxes that were due. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to every other company ? My small company pays it's taxes in Ireland.
Maybe I misread it, but your solution involved Apple not paying the tax due?
It was a terrible headline, and an utterly predictable response arising from it.
Although on a lighter note, shouldn't that be 'Former Tory Minister', rather than 'Ex-Tory Minister'? Makes me think it is saying she is no longer a Tory.
I expect Labour to win over 30 seats at the next GE in Scotland. Also quite a bit more in the Holyrood elections, but the SNP will still be top dog there.
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Time to take a well earned holiday abroad, and then stay there?
Will the Irish be able to afford it once the EU has fined them for their Apple deal? I think we might effectively end up liable for that fine.
Of course, they can. All they have to do is not make Apple pay the tax they should have.
What's Apple's incentive to stay based in Ireland after that?
So Tax dodging companies can do whatever they like. What Ireland did is illegal. Not collecting taxes that were due. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to every other company ? My small company pays it's taxes in Ireland.
Maybe I misread it, but your solution involved Apple not paying the tax due?
Of course, NOT. But Ireland should have asked for and still should make Apple pay the taxes.
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Time to take a well earned holiday abroad, and then stay there?
Unlike most African tyrants who can have a well earned rest on the French Riviera he'll have to make do with a very chilly London
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
He could leave for Singapore to spend more time with his investments.
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Time to take a well earned holiday abroad, and then stay there?
Unlike most African tyrants who can have a well earned rest on the French Riviera he'll have to make do with a very chilly London
Will the Irish be able to afford it once the EU has fined them for their Apple deal? I think we might effectively end up liable for that fine.
Of course, they can. All they have to do is not make Apple pay the tax they should have.
What's Apple's incentive to stay based in Ireland after that?
So Tax dodging companies can do whatever they like. What Ireland did is illegal. Not collecting taxes that were due. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to every other company ? My small company pays it's taxes in Ireland.
Maybe I misread it, but your solution involved Apple not paying the tax due?
Of course, NOT. But Ireland should have asked for and still should make Apple pay the taxes.
What did you mean by this then?
Of course, they can. All they have to do is not make Apple pay the tax they should have.
'Revolutionary hero or the man who wrecked Zimbabwe?' is a headline - I don't know why both of those cannot be true. Whatever else he did as a young man that might have been heroic, he did definitely wreck Zimbabwe and rule as a brutal despot.
Revolutionary hero could describe Mandela, but Murderer Mugabe nope...
I have no idea what he did in the 60s or 70s in the fight for independence - I can accept the possibility as a leader at the time he would be regarded as heroic for what he did then. But even bad people can do heroic things, and it doesn't make up for decades of despotism.
When you’ve killed thousands of your own people - there isn’t anything you can put on the other side of the ledger to make up for it in my view in moral terms.
Always did their recycling properly?
Sounds like Westwood's wonderfully dry comment on Nicholas II:
'Historians who have looked for positive things to say about the last Tsar note that he was a good husband.'
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Time to take a well earned holiday abroad, and then stay there?
Unlike most African tyrants who can have a well earned rest on the French Riviera he'll have to make do with a very chilly London
Jeez...its is going to be a very good Christmas at Chez Peter Kay...he is basically sold out for 2018 in a few hours, and now selling masses of dates for mid 2019!!!
I am going to see him in Dublin in February 2019, as a birthday treat (assuming I’m still alive and we can get out of the country...).
I have never in my life organised something 15 months in advance. My wedding was organised and done in 6 months. Even my biggest trials have been fixed in less time.
The problem for Mugabe in agreeing to go is that it he will quickly move on from being a respected elder statesman to someone to take revenge on. It's unlikely he hasn't picked up lots of enemies after 35 years and the celebration of his resignation will embolden them. If he or his wife escape a trial I'd be very surprised. The precedents aren't good
Time to take a well earned holiday abroad, and then stay there?
Unlike most African tyrants who can have a well earned rest on the French Riviera he'll have to make do with a very chilly London
I think May needs to get Fallon back. Two weeks off for a Tory who touched someone's knee is unforgivable. After all, he didn't put his d**k in a dead pig's mouth.
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
Like we have now? Why pay money to discuss trade terms? Not to make progress, but merely to have it on the agenda?
Mr Eagles, where else would pay to merely discuss things? Can you give me a logical analogy?
The best analogy is this.
We've agreed the EU budget for a few more years, we've signed up to it. We're walking out of it midway, it is like signing up to a 2 year phone contract and wanting to cancel 6 weeks in without wanting to pay the rest of the contract nor the unbilled charges, and we still want to keep the handset.
On the whole, the worst analogy ever made on PB. Our membership is for an unfixed duration, terminable on notice. A 2 year contract is for, doh, 2 years. Walking out in your example is a breach or repudiation of the contract, giving notice under A50 is in accordance with it. There is no 'rest of the contract', and no one has ever suggested we should not pay the unbilled charges, set out with supporting evidence and net of sums due to us. And what's the handset?
Out of interest - how is William Hague perceived by Brexiteers?
He was quite Eurosceptic once right but then backed Remain? Does that make him a decent sort or a bit suspect?
He's a decent sort. It was he who helped convince Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place. If you note he's never been abusive, patronising or aggressively critical of either side.
I think the experience of losing GE2001 as leader changed him, though.
'Revolutionary hero or the man who wrecked Zimbabwe?' is a headline - I don't know why both of those cannot be true. Whatever else he did as a young man that might have been heroic, he did definitely wreck Zimbabwe and rule as a brutal despot.
Revolutionary hero could describe Mandela, but Murderer Mugabe nope...
I have no idea what he did in the 60s or 70s in the fight for independence - I can accept the possibility as a leader at the time he would be regarded as heroic for what he did then. But even bad people can do heroic things, and it doesn't make up for decades of despotism.
Nor does it matter what he did then. A man is entitled to be judged on his record of 37 years of office, and it's a dreadful record.
Jeez...its is going to be a very good Christmas at Chez Peter Kay...he is basically sold out for 2018 in a few hours, and now selling masses of dates for mid 2019!!!
I am going to see him in Dublin in February 2019, as a birthday treat (assuming I’m still alive and we can get out of the country...).
I have never in my life organised something 15 months in advance. My wedding was organised and done in 6 months. Even my biggest trials have been fixed in less time.
Still an Irish holiday in February should be fun!
a taster
"Just booked a Muslim rock'n'roll band - jihadi wadi."
I seem to recall Hosni Mubarak making a speech about his government, but not him, resigning, and then a day or so later he was gone. But given the deference being given to Mugabe, I guess the military could not make him resign then and there without force, and so have accepted him staying on until the party congress.
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
So bob, you are going to resign aren’t you....yes...and what does your speech say...not telling you...but you are going to resign...yes (folds pieces of paper tightly).
He (Mugabe) has acknowledged that the country's economy is going through a "difficult patch".
It’s like Hollywood admitting that the casting couch culture was some isolated incidents of minor sexual harassment.
More like the Japanese emperor saying 'the war situation has developed, not necessarily to our advantage.'
What a fool. He's been sacked, trying to cling on just means he will be removed and imprisoned rather than being allowed to retire and take a long holiday in lovely South-East Asia.
That is a rather bizarre story, if true. Whatever respect they want to appear to show him, whatever respect they really may have for him, the idea they didn't really know what he would say is incredible, rather than my assumption that they knew but accepted his staying on for now at least.
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
Like we have now? Why pay money to discuss trade terms? Not to make progress, but merely to have it on the agenda?
Mr Eagles, where else would pay to merely discuss things? Can you give me a logical analogy?
The best analogy is this.
We've agreed the EU budget for a few more years, we've signed up to it. We're walking out of it midway, it is like signing up to a 2 year phone contract and wanting to cancel 6 weeks in without wanting to pay the rest of the contract nor the unbilled charges, and we still want to keep the handset.
On the whole, the worst analogy ever made on PB. Our membership is for an unfixed duration, terminable on notice. A 2 year contract is for, doh, 2 years. Walking out in your example is a breach or repudiation of the contract, giving notice under A50 is in accordance with it. There is no 'rest of the contract', and no one has ever suggested we should not pay the unbilled charges, set out with supporting evidence and net of sums due to us. And what's the handset?
Yes, TSE is talking nonsense. The UK did NOT sign up to fund the EU budget for a fixed period. In fact, the funding decision (the Own Resources Decision) is not linked to the budget round at all - it is perpetual until it is revoked or amended and continues regardless of the budget round status. As Ishmael_Z says, by law it is simply subject to termination at notice as set out in A50.
It would be nice if the remainers had even the slightest understanding of the treaties before the opine on how much we 'owe'.
He (Mugabe) has acknowledged that the country's economy is going through a "difficult patch".
It’s like Hollywood admitting that the casting couch culture was some isolated incidents of minor sexual harassment.
I wonder if Mugabe has factions within the Army loyal to him. That is usually the problem in a bloodless coup. You cannot have a coup and then have discussions...
He (Mugabe) has acknowledged that the country's economy is going through a "difficult patch".
It’s like Hollywood admitting that the casting couch culture was some isolated incidents of minor sexual harassment.
I wonder if Mugabe has factions within the Army loyal to him. That is usually the problem in a bloodless coup. You cannot have a coup and then have discussions...
You'd have to assume, as wily as he is, that that the coup plotters did not want to humiliate him meant that he still retains some power, even if only the threat of not playing ball.
I would heartily recommend the 'Calling Blighty' programme which is almost finished on C4 but will be about to start on C4+1. Very moving to see the films of the men fighting in Burma and the impact on their families.
So bob, you are going to resign aren’t you....yes...and what does your speech say...not telling you...but you are going to resign...yes (folds pieces of paper tightly).
Just tell him its going out live - then pre-record it.....just in case.
So bob, you are going to resign aren’t you....yes...and what does your speech say...not telling you...but you are going to resign...yes (folds pieces of paper tightly).
Just tell him its going out live - then pre-record it.....just in case.
The bloke on Sky News reckoned that it was edited because Mugabe messed up a lot of lines.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
And the contractual agreement includes nothing about having to pay a leaving fee. Even if we have to complete our liabilities to the end of the budget round that is only 1 year's worth of contributions or £15 billion gross.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
The EU seem to have some difficulty in showing their evidence for these so-called contractual agreements.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Both wrong. Assets and liabilities are irrelevant to the discussion as per the treaties member states have no rights to assets and no responsibility for liabilities. And it is nothing to do with 'contractual' arrangements, as there is no contract except the treaties.
The position of the treaties is perfectly clear, that the Own Resources Decision which funds the EU can be terminated by two years notice.
There is no jurisdiction of the ECJ in this matter, as by definition any liability only occurs at the point of exit, at which time ECJ jurisdiction has ceased.
BBC showing footage of the closing moments of Mugabe's speech. I'd describe the atmosphere as chilly. Or funereal.
It may be funereal for some.
Uncle Bob still has quite a following in Malawi. I steer clear of the subject when there. Demagogues have a populist appeal despite concrete evidence of failure. People always find excuses.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Both wrong. Assets and liabilities are irrelevant to the discussion as per the treaties member states have no rights to assets and no responsibility for liabilities. And it is nothing to do with 'contractual' arrangements, as there is no contract except the treaties.
The position of the treaties is perfectly clear, that the Own Resources Decision which funds the EU can be terminated by two years notice.
There is no jurisdiction of the ECJ in this matter, as by definition any liability only occurs at the point of exit, at which time ECJ jurisdiction has ceased.
Even better for the EU27. Make up the rules as they go along. Either you pay up... or we don't talk. After all, there is no law which will compel them to talk.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Those expenses commitments we have already signed.Don't worry, Barnier has given Davis many copies.
BBC showing footage of the closing moments of Mugabe's speech. I'd describe the atmosphere as chilly. Or funereal.
It may be funereal for some.
Uncle Bob still has quite a following in Malawi. I steer clear of the subject when there. Demagogues have a populist appeal despite concrete evidence of failure. People always find excuses.
He didn't look much like a demagogue in that, did he? He looked like a confused, rambling and incompetent old man. Which is of course what he is.
I can remember when he was far more than that - a monster but a formidable monster. When he was the African answer to Ian Paisley. Today, he will surely have lost whatever support he had remaining - a Ceaucescu moment, indeed.
Paisley had the sense to go before he lost his powers. Mugabe seems determined to end his life in prison.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
His analysis is generally good, but he makes two miscalculations:
Firstly, he uses the net asset value of the EIB, which undervalues our stake in it.
Secondly, he includes all the Eurozone bailout assets. Unlike Eurozone members, we didn't underwrite the Greek bailout, except through our membership of the IMF. Because we're not on the hook for the Eurozone/EU portion of Greek debts if they fail to repay, we can't reasonably claim a share of them.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Both wrong. Assets and liabilities are irrelevant to the discussion as per the treaties member states have no rights to assets and no responsibility for liabilities. And it is nothing to do with 'contractual' arrangements, as there is no contract except the treaties.
The position of the treaties is perfectly clear, that the Own Resources Decision which funds the EU can be terminated by two years notice.
There is no jurisdiction of the ECJ in this matter, as by definition any liability only occurs at the point of exit, at which time ECJ jurisdiction has ceased.
Even better for the EU27. Make up the rules as they go along. Either you pay up... or we don't talk. After all, there is no law which will compel them to talk.
Certainly not in terms of negotiating a trade deal. But in terms of having an amicable separation? I think it's pretty clear that we're in the right in terms of what we owe (i.e. nothing in excess of what we owe as members). But some are suggesting that us not paying the ransom will result in a punishment such as not allowing planes to fly to Europe.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
His analysis is generally good, but he makes two miscalculations:
Firstly, he uses the net asset value of the EIB, which undervalues our stake in it.
Secondly, he includes all the Eurozone bailout assets. Unlike Eurozone members, we didn't underwrite the Greek bailout, except through our membership of the IMF. Because we're not on the hook for the Eurozone/EU portion of Greek debts if they fail to repay, we can't reasonably claim a share of them.
The EIB one is a difficult one. If it were sold on the open market, it would probably trade at c. 1.8-2.0x net asset value. However, all stakes - and money in - have historically been at book (i.e. 1.0x net asset value).
Do we value our stake based on what would be the market price? Or do we say that, as we bought in at the book value at the time, it is reasonable to expect to use book value at exit.
Perhaps the worrying part of the article is this though:
Obesity is an issue affecting people of all ages and incomes, everywhere,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, director of IHME and a co-founder of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. “In the last three decades, not one country has achieved success in reducing obesity rates, and we expect obesity to rise steadily as incomes rise in low- and middle-income countries in particular, unless urgent steps are taken to address this public health crisis.”
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Those expenses commitments we have already signed.Don't worry, Barnier has given Davis many copies.
Actually, he has not. Barnier has to publish anything that they demand formally and he can't do that because it has no legal basis. The EU have never produced any list of 'commitments', nor have they provided the UK with any legal basis for their demands. They simply demand that the UK tell them what they will pay.
You need to get your story straight. One minute they are demanding 'commitments', the next you say that they are 'make up the rules as they go along' How about admit that you have no idea what you are talking about but you just want to support the EUs position, whatever it may be.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Those expenses commitments we have already signed.Don't worry, Barnier has given Davis many copies.
Actually, he has not. Barnier has to publish anything that they demand formally and he can't do that because it has no legal basis. The EU have never produced any list of 'commitments', nor have they provided the UK with any legal basis for their demands. They simply demand that the UK tell them what they will pay.
You need to get your story straight. One minute they are demanding 'commitments', the next you say that they are 'make up the rules as they go along' How about admit that you have no idea what you are talking about but you just want to support the EUs position, whatever it may be.
The EU analysis has been printed in the FT and the WSJ. You can disagree with it all you like, but you cannot argue that it has not been circulated widely.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
His analysis is generally good, but he makes two miscalculations:
Firstly, he uses the net asset value of the EIB, which undervalues our stake in it.
Secondly, he includes all the Eurozone bailout assets. Unlike Eurozone members, we didn't underwrite the Greek bailout, except through our membership of the IMF. Because we're not on the hook for the Eurozone/EU portion of Greek debts if they fail to repay, we can't reasonably claim a share of them.
If these are taken into account then our "disengagement payment" should be even less. Unfortunately Mrs May in Florence has already indicated a larger figure, but fortunately she has been saved by the Europeans who said it is not good enough!
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Those expenses commitments we have already signed.Don't worry, Barnier has given Davis many copies.
Nope. What we need is contractual justification for the claim that liabilities count and assets do not.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
His analysis is generally good, but he makes two miscalculations:
Firstly, he uses the net asset value of the EIB, which undervalues our stake in it.
Secondly, he includes all the Eurozone bailout assets. Unlike Eurozone members, we didn't underwrite the Greek bailout, except through our membership of the IMF. Because we're not on the hook for the Eurozone/EU portion of Greek debts if they fail to repay, we can't reasonably claim a share of them.
If these are taken into account then our "disengagement payment" should be even less. Unfortunately Mrs May in Florence has already indicated a larger figure, but fortunately she has been saved by the Europeans who said it is not good enough!
The first works in our favour, and the second against us.
Daniel Gros's letter to the FT might influence the negotiators.
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
What would UK do if the EU does not accept this argument ? Take them to the ECJ ?
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Oh goody, clarity at last. Could you just post the text of the specific relevant agreement?
Those expenses commitments we have already signed.Don't worry, Barnier has given Davis many copies.
Actually, he has not. Barnier has to publish anything that they demand formally and he can't do that because it has no legal basis. The EU have never produced any list of 'commitments', nor have they provided the UK with any legal basis for their demands. They simply demand that the UK tell them what they will pay.
You need to get your story straight. One minute they are demanding 'commitments', the next you say that they are 'make up the rules as they go along' How about admit that you have no idea what you are talking about but you just want to support the EUs position, whatever it may be.
The EU analysis has been printed in the FT and the WSJ. You can disagree with it all you like, but you cannot argue that it has not been circulated widely.
Well, to be fair, you can. Getting behind the FT paywall is like breaking into Mordor.
Comments
Whichever side of the Brexit divide you are on, this is appalling:
Ex-Tory minister Anna Soubry says her office has received 13 death threats since a newspaper front page named her as one of 15 "Brexit mutineers".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42045175
Although on a lighter note, shouldn't that be 'Former Tory Minister', rather than 'Ex-Tory Minister'? Makes me think it is saying she is no longer a Tory.
Of course, they can. All they have to do is not make Apple pay the tax they should have.
Well done, Mr.President !
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/19/calls-for-bath-university-vice-chancellor-to-resign-over-further-pay-rise
'Historians who have looked for positive things to say about the last Tsar note that he was a good husband.'
I have never in my life organised something 15 months in advance. My wedding was organised and done in 6 months. Even my biggest trials have been fixed in less time.
Still an Irish holiday in February should be fun!
US Navy: Penis in sky drawn by jet trail was 'unacceptable'
The thing I find most amusing is the parent upset at 'having to explain to her children what the vapour trail's shape represented'. Here's a thought - don't explain it to them, or make something up if it is that shocking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42032629
Next.
I think the experience of losing GE2001 as leader changed him, though.
"Just booked a Muslim rock'n'roll band - jihadi wadi."
https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/i-can-see-the-fear-in-your-eyes-peter-kay-went-rogue-on-the-late-late-show-last-night-and-everyone-loved-it-36331622.html
It’s like Hollywood admitting that the casting couch culture was some isolated incidents of minor sexual harassment.
https://twitter.com/nomsa_maseko/status/932327805479735298
So bob, you are going to resign aren’t you....yes...and what does your speech say...not telling you...but you are going to resign...yes (folds pieces of paper tightly).
http://www.dw.com/en/jose-manuel-maza-spanish-prosecutor-leading-case-against-catalans-dies/a-41439891
What a fool. He's been sacked, trying to cling on just means he will be removed and imprisoned rather than being allowed to retire and take a long holiday in lovely South-East Asia.
But then, it couldn't happen to a nastier thug.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/live170690932/Uhren-angehalten-Jamaika-Poker-geht-in-naechste-Verlaengerung.html
It would be nice if the remainers had even the slightest understanding of the treaties before the opine on how much we 'owe'.
I believe some body has coined a term for this kind of situation...
Meanwhile in Zimbabwe...
I would heartily recommend the 'Calling Blighty' programme which is almost finished on C4 but will be about to start on C4+1. Very moving to see the films of the men fighting in Burma and the impact on their families.
Oh, sorry, you weren't referring to the Mug's speech?
He says (I paraphrase because the FT is touchy about copyright) that the EU has assets of ~ €160bn and liabilities of ~ €232bn, thus net debt of ~ €72bn, and since the UK's share in the EU budget is 14 per cent our "disengagement payment" would be 0.14 x €72bn = €10bn, or a bit less than £9bn, and that this should be the settlement.
Gros is a significant European economist and is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels
To see the letter google "The Brexit divorce bill made simple comes in at just €10bn".
The EU position is not about assets. It is about contractual agreements.
Insert gag of choice about trump...
The position of the treaties is perfectly clear, that the Own Resources Decision which funds the EU can be terminated by two years notice.
There is no jurisdiction of the ECJ in this matter, as by definition any liability only occurs at the point of exit, at which time ECJ jurisdiction has ceased.
Uncle Bob still has quite a following in Malawi. I steer clear of the subject when there. Demagogues have a populist appeal despite concrete evidence of failure. People always find excuses.
I can remember when he was far more than that - a monster but a formidable monster. When he was the African answer to Ian Paisley. Today, he will surely have lost whatever support he had remaining - a Ceaucescu moment, indeed.
Paisley had the sense to go before he lost his powers. Mugabe seems determined to end his life in prison.
Firstly, he uses the net asset value of the EIB, which undervalues our stake in it.
Secondly, he includes all the Eurozone bailout assets. Unlike Eurozone members, we didn't underwrite the Greek bailout, except through our membership of the IMF. Because we're not on the hook for the Eurozone/EU portion of Greek debts if they fail to repay, we can't reasonably claim a share of them.
Do we value our stake based on what would be the market price? Or do we say that, as we bought in at the book value at the time, it is reasonable to expect to use book value at exit.
http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/vast-majority-american-adults-are-overweight-or-obese-and-weight-growing-problem-among
Perhaps the worrying part of the article is this though:
Obesity is an issue affecting people of all ages and incomes, everywhere,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, director of IHME and a co-founder of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. “In the last three decades, not one country has achieved success in reducing obesity rates, and we expect obesity to rise steadily as incomes rise in low- and middle-income countries in particular, unless urgent steps are taken to address this public health crisis.”
You need to get your story straight. One minute they are demanding 'commitments', the next you say that they are 'make up the rules as they go along' How about admit that you have no idea what you are talking about but you just want to support the EUs position, whatever it may be.
Unfortunately Mrs May in Florence has already indicated a larger figure, but fortunately she has been saved by the Europeans who said it is not good enough!
NEW THREAD