Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Topping, who served with the British Army in Northern Ireland

245

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,986
    AnneJGP said:

    We all know there are some deeply unpleasant people who are ardently keen on Brexit. There's been a vote on the issue which resulted in a vote to leave the EU. If the politicians decide we cannot leave the EU because of the threat of violence from one quarter, can we be so certain that the reality of violence will not arise from another quarter?

    People who are shown that the ballot box doesn't work will sometimes turn to other methods.

    The reason Brexit is failing is not because we can't leave the EU but because we can't define what it means in a way that comes remotely close to uniting the people who want it. Brexit is collapsing under the weight of its contradictions.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:


    Just a bullshit expression really.

    It’s only a truism if taken literally. Anyway, the cheeky emoticon should have been a hint that I was teasing you!
    It's the other way round though. You're saying somebody wants to eat their cake, and then still have the cake after they've had it.

    That's what the UK's line is. We want to leave the cake, but retain all the benefits of cake membership.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Interesting piece but where would PB be without pedantic nitpicking?

    NI has a population of c. 1.8m, Newcastle 300k.

    I agree with (what I think is) an implication that NI and the Troubles seem a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, or if we did we've forgotten it. It's an irony that NI Unionists value their Britishness so highly while a large majority on the mainland are largely indifferent to it, and I think that contrast in attitudes is as much a problem as the incompatibility of Brexit, borders, custom unions and the GFA.

    The city has a population of circa 300k, it is the greater metro area that has a population of 1.8milllion.
    The Tyne and Wear metropolitan area is 1.6m people, but that's obviously more than just Newcastle.

    Call somebody from Sunderland a Geordie and see how long you live.
    That's immaterial. Some people take offence to be called Londoners when they actually live in London (e.g. the Essex wannabes in Romford or the wish-for Surreyites of Surbiton). What they call themselves doesn't countermand basic geography.
    It’s a view.... :p
    I have only ever read this on PB – what on earth is the point of this truism? Isn't everything opinion 'a view'?

    Just a bullshit expression really.
    It's a bullshit expression for "Sorry, but that's bullshit...."
    It's an idiotic expression.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Freggles said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Interesting piece but where would PB be without pedantic nitpicking?

    NI has a population of c. 1.8m, Newcastle 300k.

    I agree with (what I think is) an implication that NI and the Troubles seem a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, or if we did we've forgotten it. It's an irony that NI Unionists value their Britishness so highly while a large majority on the mainland are largely indifferent to it, and I think that contrast in attitudes is as much a problem as the incompatibility of Brexit, borders, custom unions and the GFA.

    The city has a population of circa 300k, it is the greater metro area that has a population of 1.8milllion.
    The Tyne and Wear metropolitan area is 1.6m people, but that's obviously more than just Newcastle.

    Call somebody from Sunderland a Geordie and see how long you live.
    That's immaterial. Some people take offence to be called Londoners when they actually live in London (e.g. the Essex wannabes in Romford or the wish-for Surreyites of Surbiton). What they call themselves doesn't countermand basic geography.
    It’s a view.... :p
    I have only ever read this on PB – what on earth is the point of this truism? Isn't everything opinion 'a view'?

    Just a bullshit expression really.
    It means that the only value you ascribe to the statement is to accept that it is a viewpoint. In other words, it's one rung above gibberish.

    In this case, it's pretty clear that Sunderland is not part of Newcastle.
    Nobody has said that it is. I said it is in the same metro area as Newcastle – which is a fact.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Freggles said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Interesting piece but where would PB be without pedantic nitpicking?

    NI has a population of c. 1.8m, Newcastle 300k.

    I agree with (what I think is) an implication that NI and the Troubles seem a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, or if we did we've forgotten it. It's an irony that NI Unionists value their Britishness so highly while a large majority on the mainland are largely indifferent to it, and I think that contrast in attitudes is as much a problem as the incompatibility of Brexit, borders, custom unions and the GFA.

    The city has a population of circa 300k, it is the greater metro area that has a population of 1.8milllion.
    The Tyne and Wear metropolitan area is 1.6m people, but that's obviously more than just Newcastle.

    Call somebody from Sunderland a Geordie and see how long you live.
    That's immaterial. Some people take offence to be called Londoners when they actually live in London (e.g. the Essex wannabes in Romford or the wish-for Surreyites of Surbiton). What they call themselves doesn't countermand basic geography.
    It’s a view.... :p
    I have only ever read this on PB – what on earth is the point of this truism? Isn't everything opinion 'a view'?

    Just a bullshit expression really.
    It means that the only value you ascribe to the statement is to accept that it is a viewpoint. In other words, it's one rung above gibberish.

    In this case, it's pretty clear that Sunderland is not part of Newcastle.
    Anyone who thinks Sunderland is part of Newcastle - go and sit in a pub there in a black and white striped shirt....
    Nobody said that it was.

    (P.S. You might equally get beaten up by moronic hooligans for wearing a blue and white striped shirt in south Sheffield).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,918
    Why do we need a border?

    I think the answer very much depends on the deal we have with the EU. If we have a FTA and limitations on the rights to benefits, health care etc by nationality after the relevant date it is not immediately obvious why we need one at all.
    Irish citizens continue to have their rights of residence in the UK, tariffs are non existent, VAT is accounted for in the same way at the moment with pre registration, what is the problem?

    Of course if we don't have a FTA with the EU then things do get more complicated. But I have never really understood why they are more complicated in NI than they would be at Dover or Heathrow or through the Channel Tunnel. If the EU is concerned about the integrity of the SM and wants to stop goods or people crossing North to South then they have to do something about it. If we are not concerned then we don't.

    The problem really arises from the combination of no deal and the backstop arrangements May signed up to next year. I really don't see an answer to that at all. We simply cannot have a materially different arrangement with Eire than we have with the rest of the EU. It simply does not make sense. It never did.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,388

    RobD said:

    I'm glad we've transitioned from 'violating the GFA to 'violating the spirit of the GFA', as I could find nothing in the text that precludes customs checks.

    Do you think the EU held a seance to get in touch with the “spirit” of the GFA?
    They used the same ouija board that Leavers use to get in touch with the "spirit" of the referendum vote, and are refusing to give it back.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,980
    Dura_Ace said:

    No matter what you think of the man and his politics - this sort of thing is never acceptable

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-45082053

    That picture of him, Ofjacob and his fucking weird kids on top of the ESB is just great.
    Insult JRM if you must. But leave his children alone.

    @Topping - thanks for an interesting header.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    AndyJS said:

    I always think that disapproval questions are pretty worthless, because people who disapprove will say so, and many people who secretly approve will say they disapprove "just in order to keep people on their toes".
    If this were true, why did this survey find people approving of it at one point? (other than the fact that it is an opinion poll, and therefore arguably a waste of space regardless of what it shows)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,601

    OrderOrder:

    "Brandon [Lewis] is trying to build a power base at Matthew Parker Street – don’t laugh, but he genuinely considers himself a leadership contender"

    Brandon Lewis is a leadership contender. Or he might be. Look what happened last time: everyone assumed Boris had it sewn up so no-one stood against him, then a quick rush of blood to Michael Gove's head and suddenly it's Andrea Leadsom versus Theresa May -- and even then the CCHQ dirty tricks department had to lean on Leadsom to step down.

    So if Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May set the bar, then every Cabinet member and half the junior ministers will be thinking they could clear it. And some of them will be right.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,394
    edited August 2018
    DavidL said:

    Why do we need a border?

    I think the answer very much depends on the deal we have with the EU. If we have a FTA and limitations on the rights to benefits, health care etc by nationality after the relevant date it is not immediately obvious why we need one at all.
    Irish citizens continue to have their rights of residence in the UK, tariffs are non existent, VAT is accounted for in the same way at the moment with pre registration, what is the problem?

    Of course if we don't have a FTA with the EU then things do get more complicated. But I have never really understood why they are more complicated in NI than they would be at Dover or Heathrow or through the Channel Tunnel. If the EU is concerned about the integrity of the SM and wants to stop goods or people crossing North to South then they have to do something about it. If we are not concerned then we don't.

    The problem really arises from the combination of no deal and the backstop arrangements May signed up to next year. I really don't see an answer to that at all. We simply cannot have a materially different arrangement with Eire than we have with the rest of the EU. It simply does not make sense. It never did.

    My view is that it is not Varadkar that is the hard liner it is Coveney. His background is agriculture lobbyist and his brother is CEO of a large Irish food company.
    Coveney knows that only the UK staying in the full EU means Irish agriculture continues unchanged. There is no food in the EEA. Adding a CU to the EEA does not stop the food checks and the EU cannot grant unlimited free tariffs to a CETA+ deal because Canada would immediately demand the same because a clause in the CETA agreement says the EU can not offer more than CETA without offering it to the Canadians.
    Then there is every other FTA that the EU has in place or is trying to negotiate and they all limit food wither via tariffs or quota's. The UK FTA gives unlimited food access they will all demand it.
    The Irish issue is food and the problem is the EU (like most other countries) is very protectionist about food.
    The real irony is the EU does not do a deal with the UK and Irish, then French farmers suffer, the EU does a deal with the EU, then Irish and French farmers will suffer.
    There is no solution only the status quo will be acceptable to these interests. The problem is we are leaving. So no deal. Irish and French farmers suffer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,866
    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,906

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Rentool, nice idea but EU integration only goes one way.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
    Indeed – there is a minor consideration that the two men whom Stokes was defending were gay and told the newspapers he was protecting them from homophobic bullies!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
    AKA voluntarily joined a trading bloc.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,845

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
    So you mean telling the Irish that they must leave the EU too? I think they would consider that tantamount to reannexation.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,906
    I see I have missed a debate on Geordies and Mackems. For once a topic where I can offer expertise, and I go and miss it!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,906
    rpjs said:

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
    So you mean telling the Irish that they must leave the EU too? I think they would consider that tantamount to reannexation.
    I am suggesting that the Irish government should reflect what would be in their economic interest, and act accordingly.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,817

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
    OK, I'm persuaded. Suggest to them that they hold a referendum there, add their Leave and Remain totals to the UK's, and see whether both countries stay or go.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,394

    I see I have missed a debate on Geordies and Mackems. For once a topic where I can offer expertise, and I go and miss it!

    I thought you would be miffed that it only lasted seconds. For such a great people as well.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,823

    rpjs said:

    So far one Leaver has sought to reannex Ireland and one has sought to replace its head of government with someone more amenable to Leave interests. You can't fault their ambitions.

    Sorry I've been away a while. I'm not advocating that the UK annexes Ireland. I'm merely suggesting we go back to the arrangement we had before both sovereign nation states got sucked in to the Brussels black hole.
    So you mean telling the Irish that they must leave the EU too? I think they would consider that tantamount to reannexation.
    I am suggesting that the Irish government should reflect what would be in their economic interest, and act accordingly.
    In 1970 Irish per capita gdp was half the UKs, and 90% of Irish exports came here. Now Ireland is wealthier and 15% of exports come here. Not entirely due to being in the EU, but they have no desire to go back in time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,044

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
    The worst news is that of 16 randomly selected potential jurors, precisely none expressed any interest in cricket.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,131
    edited August 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Why is that news? Of course it would. And of course it would affect the EU27 more badly than the UK, since we are net providers of cross-border intelligence.

    You also have to laugh at the contrast between the indignation when Theresa May gently pointed out that it is in both side's interests to maintain close security cooperation, and Martin Selmayr, saying said it would “switch off the databases” if a deal was not struck in the coming months.

    This ridiculously one-sided nonsense is almost enough to make one vote Leave next time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,044
    AndyJS said:

    "Boris Johnson mocks women in burkas who 'look like bank robbers'"

    https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-mocks-women-in-burkas-who-look-like-bank-robbers-11463209

    Which raises the question of what on earth does Boris Johnson look like ?
  • Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
    The worst news is that of 16 randomly selected potential jurors, precisely none expressed any interest in cricket.
    They are all cricket fans, they just span that yarn to get onto the jury to acquit Ben Stokes.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 44,557

    Why is that news?

    Because Brexiteers have been shouting "No deal is better than a bad deal" for a year

    It's not true. It was never true.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,285

    Scott_P said:
    Why is that news? Of course it would. And of course it would affect the EU27 more badly than the UK, since we are net providers of cross-border intelligence.
    Or that its the UK that's been arguing for continuing cooperation and its the EU thats doing 'you're a third country, why don't you just foxtrot oscar?'

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Tokyo, I know you're being silly, but if we did actually do that we'd need to hold a fresh vote here too, I think.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,823

    Interesting that there was a time when the public thought the government was doing a good job. I'm really struggling to recall why that would have been.
    Considering that we have spent the last 8 months going back on what we agreed in Dec 2017, I am a little surprised that 24% express approval!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,131
    Scott_P said:

    Why is that news?

    Because Brexiteers have been shouting "No deal is better than a bad deal" for a year

    It's not true. It was never true.
    Well, it is literally true. A deal where we paid megabucks and got nothing in return would be worse than no deal.

    But rather than this ya-boo nonsense, it would be far better for the two sides to agree a sensible deal, belatedly getting round to the issues which should have been addressed two years ago - the most important of which is the nature of the future trading relationship, from which everything else flows.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,866
    edited August 2018

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.


    It doesn't take a genius to work out that the defence is basically going to be one of self defence. The defence will look for an inside edge on Snicko now ;)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,131
    edited August 2018

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,044

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
    The worst news is that of 16 randomly selected potential jurors, precisely none expressed any interest in cricket.
    They are all cricket fans, they just span that yarn to get onto the jury to acquit Ben Stokes.
    You seem to be suggesting that if he's acquitted, it's because the jury was dishonest ?
    An unfortunate argument.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.


    It doesn't take a genius to work out that the defence is basically going to be one of self defence. The defence will look for an inside edge on Snicko now ;)
    The Steven Gerrard defence.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,980
    edited August 2018
    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Boris Johnson mocks women in burkas who 'look like bank robbers'"

    https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-mocks-women-in-burkas-who-look-like-bank-robbers-11463209

    Which raises the question of what on earth does Boris Johnson look like ?
    There is a perfectly respectable case to make against the burqa without mocking those who wear it. Why can’t an oaf like Boris - apparently so intelligent - not see that?
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Trial doesn't seem to be going well for Stokes. An accusation of homophobia is worse than belting someone these days methinks.

    It is always like this.

    The prosecution goes first.

    Wait until the defence make their case.
    The worst news is that of 16 randomly selected potential jurors, precisely none expressed any interest in cricket.
    They are all cricket fans, they just span that yarn to get onto the jury to acquit Ben Stokes.
    You seem to be suggesting that if he's acquitted, it's because the jury was dishonest ?
    An unfortunate argument.
    Never.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,067
    marman said:

    This was a pretty good and fair summary of the situation. As an Irishman and nationalist to boot, who thinks from the outset that it's the UK who continue to 'annex' part of Ireland and should ultimately clear off, i must admit that i respect the authors clarity and appreciation of the situation. It's ironic that someone with a military background is so far advanced in terms of political sensitivity than most of the politicians.

    Excellent articlre, thanks Topping.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Boris Johnson mocks women in burkas who 'look like bank robbers'"

    https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-mocks-women-in-burkas-who-look-like-bank-robbers-11463209

    Which raises the question of what on earth does Boris Johnson look like ?
    There is a perfectly respectable case to make against the burqa without mocking those who wear it. Why can’t an oaf like Boris - apparently so intelligent - not see that?
    Steve Bannon tactics.

    Then again what do you expect of someone who uses the term piccaninnies?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,980
    edited August 2018
    Yup. Max Hill is going to have his hands full. Meanwhile Alison Saunders ends up as a partner at Linklaters.

    Rewards for failure is the phrase which comes to mind.

    Interestingly, a criminal barrister friend of mine quite likes Ms Saunders. Thinks she is good at making decisions. The CPS has been rubbish for years, though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,285

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In fairness the EU did say Brexit would cause job-losses.

    I don't think 30% of the EMA was part of the plan.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 33,285
    The British government is poised to submit an extradition request to Moscow for two Russians suspected of carrying out the Salisbury nerve agent attack that left one person dead and three injured, according to Whitehall and security sources.

    The move comes after months of painstaking investigation by hundreds of officers from the police and the intelligence agencies. They have pieced together the movements of the two Russians, from their entry into the UK through to their departure.

    The Crown Prosecution Service, which prepared the extradition request, has completed the process and is ready to file, the sources said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/06/uk-poised-to-ask-russia-to-extradite-salisbury-attack-suspects
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,671
    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Recidivist, it'd prevent the value of our currency corresponding to reality (cf Italy and Greece for the most obvious examples) and move determining our own interest rates from the Bank of England to a foreign body.

    It's a one size fits all currency for economies of wildly varying scale and type, giving the export nation of Germany a permanent advantage of an artificially low interest rate whilst preventing Greece from devaluing to try and encourage tourism.

    It's daft. Countries are different. They require different interest rates.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,671

    Mr. Recidivist, it'd prevent the value of our currency corresponding to reality (cf Italy and Greece for the most obvious examples) and move determining our own interest rates from the Bank of England to a foreign body.

    It's a one size fits all currency for economies of wildly varying scale and type, giving the export nation of Germany a permanent advantage of an artificially low interest rate whilst preventing Greece from devaluing to try and encourage tourism.

    It's daft. Countries are different. They require different interest rates.

    Then why don't we have different currencies in the UK regions?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 16,396

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In the rush to force "consequences" on the UK the EU has forgot that trying to shift the EMA and EBA out of London was going to require 5-7 years and building up a base in another country before shutting down the London bases.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.
  • O/T What’s the best statistical method to see if there’s a correlation between two data sets?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,823
    MaxPB said:

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In the rush to force "consequences" on the UK the EU has forgot that trying to shift the EMA and EBA out of London was going to require 5-7 years and building up a base in another country before shutting down the London bases.
    Brexit means Brexit. Good job opportunities in the Netherlands shortly.

    My brother recently took redundancy from his continental company when they shut their UK base
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,866

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    One nation under god or Pauline Hanson though ?

    O/T What’s the best statistical method to see if there’s a correlation between two data sets?

    r^2
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Eagles, according to my copy of An Introduction to Statistics in Psychology:
    Pearson correlation for score (nominal) variables
    Spearman's correlation for items ranked smallest to largest
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,671

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    And that is a more persuasive argument than 'because we are one continent' for what reason?

    (And of course we aren't one nation - the UK is a multinational state.)
  • Scott_P said:

    Why is that news?

    Because Brexiteers have been shouting "No deal is better than a bad deal" for a year

    It's not true. It was never true.
    It is true. If the EU want our expertise to continue they need to make it worth our while and vice versa. They're still trying to have their cake and eat it as some might say.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,918

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    We need the flexibility of our own currency to offset the uncertainty that we are now facing. I simply cannot imagine a worse time to fix our currency. Even if we were not leaving the consequences of a long term fixed rate can be very, very negative. Ask Italy.

    We need the flexibility to control interest rates in the UK. We have a long term tendency to go a bit daft in the housing market which needs controlled from time to time. When interest rates are basically fixed to German needs countries with such tendencies, including Eire and Spain, really suffer from too low interest rates, a property boom and an inevitable crash.

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 25,160
    Interesting development.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Recidivist, do you think the variance within the UK is greater than or less than that within the eurozone, and wider EU?

    What do you think the advantages are of relinquishing our ability to set our own interest rates to a foreign power are?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,131
    MaxPB said:

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In the rush to force "consequences" on the UK the EU has forgot that trying to shift the EMA and EBA out of London was going to require 5-7 years and building up a base in another country before shutting down the London bases.
    To be fair I don't think it's a rush to force "consequences" on the UK, but a box-ticking mentality that means that, when a rule of their own making causes a bonkers outcome, they persist with the bonkers outcome rather than changing their own rule. Plus of course the understandable wish of specific member states to grab the EMA gig for themselves.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    edited August 2018
    Is it just me that is struggling to understand what all the fuss about Boris's article is about?

    Considering it was penned in the context of the burqa being banned by many, many liberal European democracies ... and that while it may not be common or especially polite to say they look like that, it is accurate to say it ... what is the big deal?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    One nation under god or Pauline Hanson though ?

    O/T What’s the best statistical method to see if there’s a correlation between two data sets?

    r^2
    Cheers.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,498

    O/T What’s the best statistical method to see if there’s a correlation between two data sets?

    It depends. Please be more specific.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,918

    MaxPB said:

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In the rush to force "consequences" on the UK the EU has forgot that trying to shift the EMA and EBA out of London was going to require 5-7 years and building up a base in another country before shutting down the London bases.
    To be fair I don't think it's a rush to force "consequences" on the UK, but a box-ticking mentality that means that, when a rule of their own making causes a bonkers outcome, they persist with the bonkers outcome rather than changing their own rule. Plus of course the understandable wish of specific member states to grab the EMA gig for themselves.
    Surely we should be working hard to scoop up their remaining staff to staff our own replacement body? We've even got a suitable office although it is probably a bit grander than we need.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 25,160
    Anazina said:

    AndyJS said:

    I always think that disapproval questions are pretty worthless, because people who disapprove will say so, and many people who secretly approve will say they disapprove "just in order to keep people on their toes".
    If this were true, why did this survey find people approving of it at one point? (other than the fact that it is an opinion poll, and therefore arguably a waste of space regardless of what it shows)
    I didn't say that everyone who approves pretends not to, just that some do.
  • DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    ...

    Curious how the news that the EMA is losing 30% of its staff, a lot of British expertise and is shutting down whole areas of work is going largely unreported....

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-ema/eu-drugs-agency-sees-30-percent-staff-losses-more-cuts-in-brexit-move-idUSKBN1KM53C

    Yeah I suggested that the EU should leave it in London. For some reason they ignored my advice.
    In the rush to force "consequences" on the UK the EU has forgot that trying to shift the EMA and EBA out of London was going to require 5-7 years and building up a base in another country before shutting down the London bases.
    To be fair I don't think it's a rush to force "consequences" on the UK, but a box-ticking mentality that means that, when a rule of their own making causes a bonkers outcome, they persist with the bonkers outcome rather than changing their own rule. Plus of course the understandable wish of specific member states to grab the EMA gig for themselves.
    Surely we should be working hard to scoop up their remaining staff to staff our own replacement body? We've even got a suitable office although it is probably a bit grander than we need.
    Well indeed if we can carry on with a third of their old staff that should be reasonably sufficient for our needs.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,986

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    So England isn’t a nation?
  • JohnitoJohnito Posts: 1
    The problem is that 2018 is not 1998. The nationalist population is larger now than then-now verging on a majority, it is a majority in 2/3 of the territory of NI including Belfast and among people under 50. They feel as part of Ireland as anyone in Cork and absolutely used to being integrated as part of Ireland-there are 142 areas of total all-Ireland harmonisation in all areas of life dependent on common EU standards. If Britain tries to unilaterally break those links and cut eg Derry off from Donegal, it will not be the EU's problem-it was Britain's decision to create that situation in Ireland, against the wishes of the people and as far as the people are concerned in clear breach of the GFA. That will not be tolerated and there will be massive civil disobedience against the British state in those areas. British troops previously had the RUC and the UDR plus reserves-effectively a 50,000 strong unionist militia...they are gone. Britain would have no logistical support in controlling a rebellious Irish civil population along a 500 km frontier-videos on phones at the ready for any army force against Irish civilians- and no political will to do it in the UK either.Its writ would just not run. The border will have to go in the sea or the UK will have to stay under EU rules and remain in the CU. The alternative for the UK as a whole is third country legal and regulatory status of Namibia. That is not an option. NI will have to have special EU status as laid down in the protocol. Semantics may soften but the substance will not.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,498

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Greece.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,980

    Is it just me that is struggling to understand what all the fuss about Boris's article is about?

    Considering it was penned in the context of the burqa being banned by many, many liberal European democracies ... and that while it may not be common or especially polite to say they look like that, it is accurate to say it ... what is the big deal?

    It undermines or distracts people from what might otherwise be a good argument against such face coverings. The argument against the burqa is not, after all, an aesthetic one. And it also feels a bit like bullying of the woman wearing it. It misses the point and allows those who want the burqa to focus on the language used rather than engage with the argument about why it should be banned
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,174
    The simplest solution is for the EU to offer the UK a Canada style FTA for the whole UK, not just GB, with added extras in Ireland if needed to avoid a hard border
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,596
    Mr. Glenn, England is not a nation-state, no.

    The UK is.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,196
    @TOPPING - thank you for this header.

    I appreciate this is a sensitive topic. However, I will never agree that it is reasonable for our border policy in Ireland to be determined by the views or potential actions of republican dissidents, who themselves reject the Belfast Agreement that both jurisdictions in Ireland voted for in 1998.

    Do we need to remilitarise the border? No. Does every border crossing need to be heavy duty? No. Do all customs/sanitary inspections need to be at the border? No. Is is reasonable of Sinn Fein and others to claim that even cameras would be against the spirit of the Belfast Agreement? No.

    We can have our own trade policy and not restart the Troubles. We should call Varadkar’s bluff.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,174
    edited August 2018

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    So England isn’t a nation?
    England has been a ceremonial nation rather than a sovereign nation since the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707 and arguably since the 1535 Laws in Wales Act which formally united England and Wales
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,671
    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    We need the flexibility of our own currency to offset the uncertainty that we are now facing. I simply cannot imagine a worse time to fix our currency. Even if we were not leaving the consequences of a long term fixed rate can be very, very negative. Ask Italy.

    We need the flexibility to control interest rates in the UK. We have a long term tendency to go a bit daft in the housing market which needs controlled from time to time. When interest rates are basically fixed to German needs countries with such tendencies, including Eire and Spain, really suffer from too low interest rates, a property boom and an inevitable crash.

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
    How does a means of exchange have a structure? What is target 2 and just how unbalanced can it get? Why should I care? I've been earning and spending money for 4 decades, and assiduously following the news. Economic events continue to happen without the slightest warning from the practitioners of the dismal science. I've reached the conclusion that while there do seem to be some rules and patterns of behaviour in that part of life we call economics, they are only amenable to a hazy level of understanding. Those who study these matters closely seem to have no better judgement than the rest of us. Indeed, they might even be worse.

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
  • O/T What’s the best statistical method to see if there’s a correlation between two data sets?

    It depends. Please be more specific.
    The more marginal the seat, the bigger the swing at the election.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,196
    Johnito said:

    The problem is that 2018 is not 1998. The nationalist population is larger now than then-now verging on a majority, it is a majority in 2/3 of the territory of NI including Belfast and among people under 50. They feel as part of Ireland as anyone in Cork and absolutely used to being integrated as part of Ireland-there are 142 areas of total all-Ireland harmonisation in all areas of life dependent on common EU standards. If Britain tries to unilaterally break those links and cut eg Derry off from Donegal, it will not be the EU's problem-it was Britain's decision to create that situation in Ireland, against the wishes of the people and as far as the people are concerned in clear breach of the GFA. That will not be tolerated and there will be massive civil disobedience against the British state in those areas. British troops previously had the RUC and the UDR plus reserves-effectively a 50,000 strong unionist militia...they are gone. Britain would have no logistical support in controlling a rebellious Irish civil population along a 500 km frontier-videos on phones at the ready for any army force against Irish civilians- and no political will to do it in the UK either.Its writ would just not run. The border will have to go in the sea or the UK will have to stay under EU rules and remain in the CU. The alternative for the UK as a whole is third country legal and regulatory status of Namibia. That is not an option. NI will have to have special EU status as laid down in the protocol. Semantics may soften but the substance will not.

    The people of NI won’t vote for reunification as long as it means giving up the NHS.

    You might want massive civil disobedience. I don’t think any SDLP voters and even most Sinn Fein voters want that. How many people actually want to return to the bad old days?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    We need the flexibility of our own currency to offset the uncertainty that we are now facing. I simply cannot imagine a worse time to fix our currency. Even if we were not leaving the consequences of a long term fixed rate can be very, very negative. Ask Italy.

    We need the flexibility to control interest rates in the UK. We have a long term tendency to go a bit daft in the housing market which needs controlled from time to time. When interest rates are basically fixed to German needs countries with such tendencies, including Eire and Spain, really suffer from too low interest rates, a property boom and an inevitable crash.

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
    snip

    Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    Indeed, on a practical level it makes complete sense. The other aspect is that cash transactions are on a meteoric fall – so the 'pound' as we see it is nothing more than numbers on a screen for most sales, some people run nearly cash free nowadays (I hate the stuff – it just encourages wasting money, gets lost down the sofa etc etc).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,370

    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    We need the flexibility of our own currency to offset the uncertainty that we are now facing. I simply cannot imagine a worse time to fix our currency. Even if we were not leaving the consequences of a long term fixed rate can be very, very negative. Ask Italy.

    We need the flexibility to control interest rates in the UK. We have a long term tendency to go a bit daft in the housing market which needs controlled from time to time. When interest rates are basically fixed to German needs countries with such tendencies, including Eire and Spain, really suffer from too low interest rates, a property boom and an inevitable crash.

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
    How does a means of exchange have a structure? What is target 2 and just how unbalanced can it get? Why should I care? I've been earning and spending money for 4 decades, and assiduously following the news. Economic events continue to happen without the slightest warning from the practitioners of the dismal science. I've reached the conclusion that while there do seem to be some rules and patterns of behaviour in that part of life we call economics, they are only amenable to a hazy level of understanding. Those who study these matters closely seem to have no better judgement than the rest of us. Indeed, they might even be worse.

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    Just as well you're not going to the US, I suppose. Wouldn't the arguments for joining the dollar be the same?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    AndyJS said:

    Anazina said:

    AndyJS said:

    I always think that disapproval questions are pretty worthless, because people who disapprove will say so, and many people who secretly approve will say they disapprove "just in order to keep people on their toes".
    If this were true, why did this survey find people approving of it at one point? (other than the fact that it is an opinion poll, and therefore arguably a waste of space regardless of what it shows)
    I didn't say that everyone who approves pretends not to, just that some do.
    True enough, but true of all polls. People just lie to pollsters – bizarre but true.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,174

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I have to confess when I was considering how to vote in the EU Referendum, I never gave a moment's thought to Northern Ireland. I don't give it much thought now.

    Would I throw it and its people under a bus to get a good deal for the rest of the United Kingdom? I have to confess I probably would.

    I suspect my provincial non-unionist attitude isn't unique and as I read Topping's excellent debut thread (for which, many thanks and well worth the wait and perhaps a spur to some other frequent contributors to put up your own threads) I can see the conundrum.

    I suppose there was a time when the rural backwardness of Eire contrasted sharply with the prosperity of the United Kingdom - perhaps that's not so marked now. I was in Ireland in June and there looked to be plenty of prosperity in places like Killarney, Galway and Waterford.

    I wonder if the Protestant Unionist attitude is more about not wanting to be part of Ireland rather than wanting to be part of the UK.

    Ah, the sanctity of the nation state, so important to Leavers. Brings a tear to the eye, so it does.

    No, not our present nation state of course - it’s the one that lasted from 1707 to 1801 that’s the one worth trashing the economy for.


    Not according to Scots who voted 63% for unionist parties even after the Brexit vote.

    Plus don't forget a majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland voted to Leave the EU
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Mr. Glenn, England is not a nation-state, no.

    The UK is.


    Ooooh. That's very arguable.

    It's more a state comprising four nations, rather than a nation state.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,986

    Mr. Glenn, England is not a nation-state, no.

    The UK is.

    How many nations are contained within the UK?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,980

    Mr. Recidivist, because we're one nation.

    And that is a more persuasive argument than 'because we are one continent' for what reason?

    (And of course we aren't one nation - the UK is a multinational state.)
    See what a former governor of the Bank of England said about this some years ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1722940.stm

    He also stated that lost jobs in the North were the price to be paid to deal with excessive inflation in the south. Crass but what happens when you have one currency which covers a large geographical area. Of course, in a nation state the government can mitigate these effects bt spending money in those areas adversely affected by interest rates too high for them. But that is precisely what is not happening within the eurozone.

    So the reason why sterling works better for the UK than the euro for 20 or so countries is that (a) the variance in the economy of the area covered by sterling is smaller; and (b) there is a national government which can make the necessary fiscal transfers and take other measures.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 586

    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    How does a means of exchange have a structure? What is target 2 and just how unbalanced can it get? Why should I care? I've been earning and spending money for 4 decades, and assiduously following the news. Economic events continue to happen without the slightest warning from the practitioners of the dismal science. I've reached the conclusion that while there do seem to be some rules and patterns of behaviour in that part of life we call economics, they are only amenable to a hazy level of understanding. Those who study these matters closely seem to have no better judgement than the rest of us. Indeed, they might even be worse.

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    I tend to agree with you, but ignoring that and on a more practical front - Don't buy Euros. Get a bank a/c that doesn't charge to take money out (Metro for instance) and get a credit card that doesn't charge to use it (Santander Select for instance). I never buy cash and never need to.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,845
    Anazina said:

    Interesting piece but where would PB be without pedantic nitpicking?

    NI has a population of c. 1.8m, Newcastle 300k.

    I agree with (what I think is) an implication that NI and the Troubles seem a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, or if we did we've forgotten it. It's an irony that NI Unionists value their Britishness so highly while a large majority on the mainland are largely indifferent to it, and I think that contrast in attitudes is as much a problem as the incompatibility of Brexit, borders, custom unions and the GFA.

    The city has a population of circa 300k, it is the greater metro area that has a population of 1.8milllion.
    The Tyne and Wear metropolitan area is 1.6m people, but that's obviously more than just Newcastle.

    Call somebody from Sunderland a Geordie and see how long you live.
    That's immaterial. Some people take offence to be called Londoners when they actually live in London (e.g. the Essex wannabes in Romford or the wish-for Surreyites of Surbiton). What they call themselves doesn't countermand basic geography.
    For us (in my case former) Surbitonites the problem is that the geography is not clear cut. Until the Royal Mail finally threw in the towel in the mid 90s and abolished postal counties altogether, the correct address for anywhere in Surbiton included "Surrey". Quite why the RM picked and chose from the '74 counties is another matter, but there were other oddities too: no Greater Manchester, Herefordshire and Worcestershire remained separate, and Humberside was divided into North and South.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    We need the flexibility of our own currency to offset the uncertainty that we are now facing. I simply cannot imagine a worse time to fix our currency. Even if we were not leaving the consequences of a long term fixed rate can be very, very negative. Ask Italy.

    We need the flexibility to control interest rates in the UK. We have a long term tendency to go a bit daft in the housing market which needs controlled from time to time. When interest rates are basically fixed to German needs countries with such tendencies, including Eire and Spain, really suffer from too low interest rates, a property boom and an inevitable crash.

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
    snip

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    Just as well you're not going to the US, I suppose. Wouldn't the arguments for joining the dollar be the same?
    Yes, the arguments for both the US and UK joining the Euro are indeed interesting ones.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 26,850
    Johnito said:

    The problem is that 2018 is not 1998. The nationalist population is larger now than then-now verging on a majority, it is a majority in 2/3 of the territory of NI including Belfast and among people under 50. They feel as part of Ireland as anyone in Cork and absolutely used to being integrated as part of Ireland-there are 142 areas of total all-Ireland harmonisation in all areas of life dependent on common EU standards. If Britain tries to unilaterally break those links and cut eg Derry off from Donegal, it will not be the EU's problem-it was Britain's decision to create that situation in Ireland, against the wishes of the people and as far as the people are concerned in clear breach of the GFA. That will not be tolerated and there will be massive civil disobedience against the British state in those areas. British troops previously had the RUC and the UDR plus reserves-effectively a 50,000 strong unionist militia...they are gone. Britain would have no logistical support in controlling a rebellious Irish civil population along a 500 km frontier-videos on phones at the ready for any army force against Irish civilians- and no political will to do it in the UK either.Its writ would just not run. The border will have to go in the sea or the UK will have to stay under EU rules and remain in the CU. The alternative for the UK as a whole is third country legal and regulatory status of Namibia. That is not an option. NI will have to have special EU status as laid down in the protocol. Semantics may soften but the substance will not.

    The nationalist vote share was just under 40% in 1998, and just over 40% now. The Unionist vote share was just over 50% then, and just under 50% now. A shift, but not a big one.

    The GFA does not commit either Northern Ireland or the UK to remaining within the European Union.

    While I would not wish to see violence, I don't think that the rest of us can be held to ransom by the threat of violence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,174
    RoyalBlue said:

    Johnito said:

    The problem is that 2018 is not 1998. The nationalist population is larger now than then-now verging on a majority, it is a majority in 2/3 of the territory of NI including Belfast and among people under 50. They feel as part of Ireland as anyone in Cork and absolutely used to being integrated as part of Ireland-there are 142 areas of total all-Ireland harmonisation in all areas of life dependent on common EU standards. If Britain tries to unilaterally break those links and cut eg Derry off from Donegal, it will not be the EU's problem-it was Britain's decision to create that situation in Ireland, against the wishes of the people and as far as the people are concerned in clear breach of the GFA. That will not be tolerated and there will be massive civil disobedience against the British state in those areas. British troops previously had the RUC and the UDR plus reserves-effectively a 50,000 strong unionist militia...they are gone. Britain would have no logistical support in controlling a rebellious Irish civil population along a 500 km frontier-videos on phones at the ready for any army force against Irish civilians- and no political will to do it in the UK either.Its writ would just not run. The border will have to go in the sea or the UK will have to stay under EU rules and remain in the CU. The alternative for the UK as a whole is third country legal and regulatory status of Namibia. That is not an option. NI will have to have special EU status as laid down in the protocol. Semantics may soften but the substance will not.

    The people of NI won’t vote for reunification as long as it means giving up the NHS.

    You might want massive civil disobedience. I don’t think any SDLP voters and even most Sinn Fein voters want that. How many people actually want to return to the bad old days?
    Not will the Protestant majority counties
  • Cyclefree said:

    Is it just me that is struggling to understand what all the fuss about Boris's article is about?

    Considering it was penned in the context of the burqa being banned by many, many liberal European democracies ... and that while it may not be common or especially polite to say they look like that, it is accurate to say it ... what is the big deal?

    It undermines or distracts people from what might otherwise be a good argument against such face coverings. The argument against the burqa is not, after all, an aesthetic one. And it also feels a bit like bullying of the woman wearing it. It misses the point and allows those who want the burqa to focus on the language used rather than engage with the argument about why it should be banned
    But he's not calling for it to be banned!

    Here he is calling for it not to be banned, despite plenty of liberal nations doing so ... and he's getting vilified by those who don't want it to be banned.

    If he was calling for a ban then it would make sense to moderate the language. But he's basically saying "I don't like this but I don't want it banned despite not liking it."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,174
    Anazina said:

    Mr. Glenn, England is not a nation-state, no.

    The UK is.


    Ooooh. That's very arguable.

    It's more a state comprising four nations, rather than a nation state.
    The UK now effectively has a Federal Parliament at Westminster, England has no devolved Parliament or Assembly and no Head of State either, the Queen is Head of State of the UK and Commonwealth realms. England is a nation only in sentiment not political reality
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    rpjs said:

    Anazina said:

    Interesting piece but where would PB be without pedantic nitpicking?

    NI has a population of c. 1.8m, Newcastle 300k.

    I agree with (what I think is) an implication that NI and the Troubles seem a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, or if we did we've forgotten it. It's an irony that NI Unionists value their Britishness so highly while a large majority on the mainland are largely indifferent to it, and I think that contrast in attitudes is as much a problem as the incompatibility of Brexit, borders, custom unions and the GFA.

    The city has a population of circa 300k, it is the greater metro area that has a population of 1.8milllion.
    The Tyne and Wear metropolitan area is 1.6m people, but that's obviously more than just Newcastle.

    Call somebody from Sunderland a Geordie and see how long you live.
    That's immaterial. Some people take offence to be called Londoners when they actually live in London (e.g. the Essex wannabes in Romford or the wish-for Surreyites of Surbiton). What they call themselves doesn't countermand basic geography.
    For us (in my case former) Surbitonites the problem is that the geography is not clear cut. Until the Royal Mail finally threw in the towel in the mid 90s and abolished postal counties altogether, the correct address for anywhere in Surbiton included "Surrey". Quite why the RM picked and chose from the '74 counties is another matter, but there were other oddities too: no Greater Manchester, Herefordshire and Worcestershire remained separate, and Humberside was divided into North and South.
    What the Royal Mail say or do or no longer do is also immaterial. Functioning geographies are measurable by travel patterns and even by drawing a line around a continuous urban area on a map (a rough measure for sure but a much better one than governments or postmen manage). No-one is saying that Sunderland is part of Newcastle just as no-one is saying that Surbiton is part of Twickenham. But that both pairings are within the same metro area is a matter of fact, not opinion.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 26,850

    DavidL said:

    Just changed some money for a trip to Berlin. In the real world, shouldn't we be arguing about whether it is now time to join the Euro rather than even thinking about leaving the EU?

    If anyone has an argument for not joining the Euro that doesn't involve invoking arcane knowledge of economics that can't be explained in everyday language, I'd love to hear it.

    Seriously?

    .

    We are likely to see a significant reduction in the volume of our trade with the EU over the next few years, especially if there is no deal. Why would we want to fix our rate with them leaving us no ability to change with other customers such as the US?

    We need the ability to print our own money should circumstances require it. Eurozone countries don't have that ability.

    The Euro has major structural issues showing up through the target 2 imbalances. At some point some countries are going to get seriously hurt by this. It is not in our interests to expose ourselves to such risks.
    How does a means of exchange have a structure? What is target 2 and just how unbalanced can it get? Why should I care? I've been earning and spending money for 4 decades, and assiduously following the news. Economic events continue to happen without the slightest warning from the practitioners of the dismal science. I've reached the conclusion that while there do seem to be some rules and patterns of behaviour in that part of life we call economics, they are only amenable to a hazy level of understanding. Those who study these matters closely seem to have no better judgement than the rest of us. Indeed, they might even be worse.

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    Currency unions tend to exaggerate the effects of boom and bust, as countries cease to be able to operate their own monetary policy. We saw that in Southern Europe from 2003-12.

    Compared to that, paying a commission on changing money is very small beer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,918

    DavidL said:



    How does a means of exchange have a structure? What is target 2 and just how unbalanced can it get? Why should I care? I've been earning and spending money for 4 decades, and assiduously following the news. Economic events continue to happen without the slightest warning from the practitioners of the dismal science. I've reached the conclusion that while there do seem to be some rules and patterns of behaviour in that part of life we call economics, they are only amenable to a hazy level of understanding. Those who study these matters closely seem to have no better judgement than the rest of us. Indeed, they might even be worse.

    So on the Euro - I have just spent time getting the folding stuff and paid a commission to buy them. So my trip to Berlin will be costlier than it would have been had we joined the single currency. Maybe the costs of joining at a macro level would be greater. Or maybe it would have been positively beneficial to join. I don't know. I see no evidence that anybody else does either.
    All means of exchange have a structure. The Euro is more complicated than most because there are a number of loosely aligned separate economies taking part in it. The Euro is based around the ECB in the same way Sterling is based around the BoE. The ECB determines how many Euros are printed, intervenes in the market and facilitates transfers of funds from one part of the Euro structure to the other. It is these transfers which create the target 2 imbalances. @rcs1000 did a good video piece on it.

    Basically money being saved in various parts of the EZ is being invested in German and Dutch banks which are believed to be safer leaving the banks in other parts of the EZ short of cash. They borrow that cash from the ECB and the Germans deposit their surplus funds with the ECB to give them the money to do so. The sums should be small but are now huge. If the Italian banks, for example, default or the security they have given to the ECB proves to be worth less than thought the system in general and the Germans in particular will take an enormous 2007 scale hit.

    Currencies and interest rates are essential tools to manage an economy. EZ countries have given them up on the premise that they will gain on balance from this. The results to date are very mixed. Italy has an almost permanent recession, Greece is bankrupt, Spain and Portugal have chronic unemployment and are still trying to recover. Germany is doing fine.
This discussion has been closed.