There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
The guy is on his show every day and is fair minded. At least Ferrari is fair and reasonable not like that other berk who comes on after him, who tells the most blatant lies and only gets his researchers to get lame ducks on whom he can bully.
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
@stonemuse Having trouble with word count issues replying to the original post so I have copied and pasted this bit here.
Firstly I want to get back to my original point because I think you are being a little too dismissive about it. You are obviously a big fan of FTAs. Indeed, I would say your position is that you don't believe any nation should adopt protectionist policies and that you favour the utopian world envisioned by 19th century economists who believed that a world without tariffs would see perfect competition give rise to an idyllic world where each nation focused only on producing the goods and services it was good at producing which would mean everything is produced with the most efficient cost which means all consumers and everyone else is happy. The world has moved on since the 19th century and is a much more complicated place full of pesky democracies populated not only by consumers but by employees who need jobs to be consumers, who are able influence their country's law makers, civil servants and trade negotiations.
The UK is currently a member of the world's biggest FTA in terms of area and collective GDP. Yet you want out. Why? you either believe in FTAs or you don't. The answer you gave '...but it is for members only' is completely nonsensical. If it wasn't for members only it wouldn't be a FTA. If the UK agrees a FTA with the US will you oppose it because it is only for its two members?
A lot of the rest of your post deals with how you think most trade experts are wrong and that it should be easy to negotiate FTAs with other countries. Which is fine, and a perfectly valid argument to make. But to me it is bit like Fox News still trying to make the case that Hilary's e.mails are the real issue when everyone else knows that the real issue is the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Leaving the world's biggest FTA right on our doorstep is the big issue. That is what is going to cause so much damage to the UK over the next 20 years according to 99% of respected experts and institutions. How long it will take us to negotiate FTAs with Australia, Bangladesh or Norway or any other country is trivial compared to leaving the EU without an agreement that does not allow us to sell our goods and services at competitive prices to EU members.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
The guy is on his show every day and is fair minded. At least Ferrari is fair and reasonable not like that other berk who comes on after him, who tells the most blatant lies and only gets his researchers to get lame ducks on whom he can bully.
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
You mean James O’Brien. He’s relatively left wing and pro remain which is why you call him a berk. I listen to Ferrari and O’Brien and enjoy both but there is no way that NF would allow a negative “expert” view on his watch. He’s as swivel eyed on Brexit as the best of them.
I will no longer pick you up on when your spelling or grammar is wrong if that’s what you mean. I presume I can still comment on your posts ?
The trouble is, it's not 5,000 jobs that are going to create any new value for the country; it's 5,000 new jobs that will be necessary to deal with the added bureaucracy of a post-Brexit world.
Would you rather have a pal out of work - or doing one of these jobs ? Blair employed thousands of extra civil servants during his time in office.
@stonemuse Having trouble with word count issues replying to the original post so I have copied and pasted this bit here.
Firstly I want to get back to my original point because I think you are being a little too dismissive about it. You are obviously a big fan of FTAs. Indeed, I would say your position is that you don't believe any nation should adopt protectionist policies and that you favour the utopian world envisioned by 19th century economists who believed that a world without tariffs would see perfect competition give rise to an idyllic world where each nation focused only on producing the goods and services it was good at producing which would mean everything is produced with the most efficient cost which means all consumers and everyone else is happy. The world has moved on since the 19th century and is a much more complicated place full of pesky democracies populated not only by consumers but by employees who need jobs to be consumers, who are able influence their country's law makers, civil servants and trade negotiations.
The UK is currently a member of the world's biggest FTA in terms of area and collective GDP. Yet you want out. Why? you either believe in FTAs or you don't. The answer you gave '...but it is for members only' is completely nonsensical. If it wasn't for members only it wouldn't be a FTA. If the UK agrees a FTA with the US will you oppose it because it is only for its two members?
A lot of the rest of your post deals with how you think most trade experts are wrong and that it should be easy to negotiate FTAs with other countries. Which is fine, and a perfectly valid argument to make. But to me it is bit like Fox News still trying to make the case that Hilary's e.mails are the real issue when everyone else knows that the real issue is the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Leaving the world's biggest FTA right on our doorstep is the big issue. That is what is going to cause so much damage to the UK over the next 20 years according to 99% of respected experts and institutions. How long it will take us to negotiate FTAs with Australia, Bangladesh or Norway or any other country is trivial compared to leaving the EU without an agreement that does not allow us to sell our goods and services at competitive prices to EU members.
Apologies if I seem dismissive ... that is certainly never my intention.
I’m no economist but doesn’t your 2nd paragraph describe ‘comparative advantage’ which is still the ideal?
I tried to explain why I do not see the EU as a UFT area ... whilst it is a free trade area for members, it applies tariffs and non-tariff barriers to non-members. I do not believe that protectionism is good for world trade and developing markets, nor for consumers.
The two long emails that I posted outline my arguments. That’s it I’m afraid.
"Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately."
Having got halfway through the book written by the committed EU supporter and anti austerity socialist - Yanis Varoufakis "Adults in the Room My Battle with Europe's Deep Establishment" am inclined to agree with you. If the Brexit negotiations are taking anything like the path he had to navigate in getting approval of his debt relief proposals, we have no chance of an agreement.
Despite having the approval of the IMF, the major EU nations finance ministers, representatives of the ECB, the Council, under the domination of the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble supported by a bloc of "cheerleaders" comprised of Lithuania and the other east European states, refused to give way on a single proposal and insisted on continued maximum Greek austerity. Of the representatives of the bodies and countries who had outside given him support, none said a word in support at the official Euro Group meeting. Varoufakis observation -None of the EU state Finance Ministers were presented with any briefing papers on the topics being voted on any of the meetings. "A reasonable and impartial spectator might have concluded that the Ministers presence is to approve and legitimise the decisions already made.
There are numerous other quotes decrying the lack of any democratic processes.
That is not to say this has altered Varoufakis belief that the EU is a valuable institution and a power for good, and I respect that view, but its inherent undemocratic constitution relies on the goodwill and integrity of its officials, or sweeping reform. Neither of which I personally have any faith in.
If Greece is not to dissolve into absolute financial ruin and poverty, it has no option but to believe in the EU as a saviour. The UK is fortunately not in such a parlous position.
Anyone who as an article of faith thinks the EU is a democratic institution @seth plum might gain an alternative perspective from someone who has experienced it. Reading these accounts of EU meetings, and even allowing for the bias of the author, the use of blackmail and lying about the actions which would be taken if the Councils's ultimatums were ignored, will be illuminating.
In the end the impasse that allowed debt relief for Greece to be approved was broken when Angela Merkal intervened and Schauble was ordered him to retreat from his ideological austerity position.
@stonemuse .....In your reply to Prague a couple of pages back you you stated you believe in Free Trade. Yet you .
Not got too much time but promised a further response. Doing this in between a couple of trade projects that I am working on, so may be a little disjointed.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier.
The rich EU member countries, including the UK, invest billions on infrastructure projects, education and cultural projects in the poorer regions of the EU and in new joining countries. The aim is that in 10, 20, 30 years these regions will grow to be modern mature economies, increasing the total GDP of the EU and providing new market opportunities for the its members.
In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – as far as I can ascertain, the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Exactly, which makes the decision to leave the EU insane.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. I found this interesting article on the fallacy of the Brexit argument for UFT. https://www.ft.com/content/2a009b7c-2d71-11e6-bf8d-26294ad519fc
Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
You are referencing ideas expressed at a time when there was no such thing as workers rights, human rights or consumer rights. In the modern world these issues have to be addressed which means UFT is a fantasy.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia.
Does this not prove the complete fallacy of one of the core Brexit arguments about taking back control and how anti democratic the EU is?
In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others.
But we still trade with these countries.
It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects.
What is the GDP of this area compared to the GDP? How long before it is even close to the EU's? What are the geographical barriers compared to the EU? Haven't we already encountered problems negotiating a FTA with India because of immigration quotas they are seeking?
That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
The paragraph above is the bit I was referring to when I stated I found some of the assumptions difficult to believe to be true. On reading it several times I think it is more a case that I didn't understand it. I think you are saying the EU has FTAs with other countries, including ones with Norway and Switzerland, that we could easily replicate outside the EU. I state again, FTAs with countries like Norway and Switzerland are trivial compared to the FTA we currently have with the 28 other members of the EU.
@stonemuse Having trouble with word count issues replying to the original post so I have copied and pasted this bit here.
Firstly I want to get back to my original point because I think you are being a little too dismissive about it. You are obviously a big fan of FTAs. Indeed, I would say your position is that you don't believe any nation should adopt protectionist policies and that you favour the utopian world envisioned by 19th century economists who believed that a world without tariffs would see perfect competition give rise to an idyllic world where each nation focused only on producing the goods and services it was good at producing which would mean everything is produced with the most efficient cost which means all consumers and everyone else is happy. The world has moved on since the 19th century and is a much more complicated place full of pesky democracies populated not only by consumers but by employees who need jobs to be consumers, who are able influence their country's law makers, civil servants and trade negotiations.
The UK is currently a member of the world's biggest FTA in terms of area and collective GDP. Yet you want out. Why? you either believe in FTAs or you don't. The answer you gave '...but it is for members only' is completely nonsensical. If it wasn't for members only it wouldn't be a FTA. If the UK agrees a FTA with the US will you oppose it because it is only for its two members?
A lot of the rest of your post deals with how you think most trade experts are wrong and that it should be easy to negotiate FTAs with other countries. Which is fine, and a perfectly valid argument to make. But to me it is bit like Fox News still trying to make the case that Hilary's e.mails are the real issue when everyone else knows that the real issue is the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Leaving the world's biggest FTA right on our doorstep is the big issue. That is what is going to cause so much damage to the UK over the next 20 years according to 99% of respected experts and institutions. How long it will take us to negotiate FTAs with Australia, Bangladesh or Norway or any other country is trivial compared to leaving the EU without an agreement that does not allow us to sell our goods and services at competitive prices to EU members.
. I tried to explain why I do not see the EU as a UFT area ... whilst it is a free trade area for members, it applies tariffs and non-tariff barriers to non-members. I do not believe that protectionism is good for world trade and developing markets, nor for consumers.
But consumers have to be employees first. And in the modern world workers have rights. In today's world countries negotiating FTAs have to consider the rights of its own workers as well as the rights of the workers in other countries it is proposing to trade with. That is why free trade arguments from the 19th century are so meaningless.
"Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately."
Having got halfway through the book written by the committed EU supporter and anti austerity socialist - Yanis Varoufakis "Adults in the Room My Battle with Europe's Deep Establishment" am inclined to agree with you. If the Brexit negotiations are taking anything like the path he had to navigate in getting approval of his debt relief proposals, we have no chance of an agreement.
Despite having the approval of the IMF, the major EU nations finance ministers, representatives of the ECB, the Council, under the domination of the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble supported by a bloc of "cheerleaders" comprised of Lithuania and the other east European states, refused to give way on a single proposal and insisted on continued maximum Greek austerity. Of the representatives of the bodies and countries who had outside given him support, none said a word in support at the official Euro Group meeting. Varoufakis observation -None of the EU state Finance Ministers were presented with any briefing papers on the topics being voted on any of the meetings. "A reasonable and impartial spectator might have concluded that the Ministers presence is to approve and legitimise the decisions already made.
There are numerous other quotes decrying the lack of any democratic processes.
That is not to say this has altered Varoufakis belief that the EU is a valuable institution and a power for good, and I respect that view, but its inherent undemocratic constitution relies on the goodwill and integrity of its officials, or sweeping reform. Neither of which I personally have any faith in.
If Greece is not to dissolve into absolute financial ruin and poverty, it has no option but to believe in the EU as a saviour. The UK is fortunately not in such a parlous position.
Anyone who as an article of faith thinks the EU is a democratic institution @seth plum might gain an alternative perspective from someone who has experienced it. Reading these accounts of EU meetings, and even allowing for the bias of the author, the use of blackmail and lying about the actions which would be taken if the Councils's ultimatums were ignored, will be illuminating.
In the end the impasse that allowed debt relief for Greece to be approved was broken when Angela Merkal intervened and Schauble was ordered him to retreat from his ideological austerity position.
Varoufakis is indeed an expert in these matters, having been the Greek finance minister for six months and in those negotiations for the whole time. The one point which he never appears to acknowledge is why the outcome was inevitable. Quite simply, it's nothing to do with lack of democracy and everything to do with Moral Hazard. For if Greece had secured debt forgiveness then populists would walk the floor in the Italian and Spanish elections, crash their economies and probably crash the Euro too. The Germans are portrayed as the baddies but they attracted the support of other countries because living standards and pensions in those countries were far lower than Greece - why should their central fund bail out the Greeks who put themselves in the mess?
Basically countries have to resolve their own issues and make structural reforms so as to keep up with the more effective economies. The Mail, Express and Telegraph highlight every story about far right parties winning support and how the Italian economy is on the brink of collapse. However, the reality is that Eurozone GDP growth has just been clocked at 2.5% year on year and unemployment is still falling. And the far right poll 15%.
We have differed on our perspective on Italian banks - the fact is that 25% of the NPL mountain has been taken care of this year and the Italian economy is picking up which in turn will raise the value of the underlying assets in the remaining portfolios. The Italians are also addressing the court processes associated with NPLs so as to cut collection costs and speed up proceedings which take far too long. Is that undemocratic or a common sense solution?
Greece is now growing and needs to collect taxes and find more ways to grow - perhaps Greece and southern Italy should monetise their position on the front line of people trafficking across the Med for that is a concern to the whole continent. Perhaps Greece and Italy are the natural places to house some military installations to assist with the inevitable conflicts in the Middle East and Africa?
Back to the UK: we were in a perfect position to negotiate reforms in the EU for we were by far the largest economy NOT in the Eurozone. There are effectively two types of nation in the EU and EFTA: Those in the Euro and those outside. Several posters have reached the consensus that we should stay in EFTA and that is the obvious solution today for March 2019. That is the majority view in this country and it has also been the Varoufakis position since Article 50 was triggered last March.
The only question is whether this common sense view will win through and whether it will be May, Corbyn or somebody else that delivers it. I suspect May and Hammond would opt for this solution tomorrow if they could but the hard Brexit fanatics won't let them. So the matter is being dragged out with the risk that uncertainty damage the economy as well as leaving us open to "no deal". There is also the distinct possibility that this struggle will tear the Conservative party apart but many cannot see a downside to that scenario!
There is no bespoke deal on offer from the EU27 and there never will be! Despite the position articulated clearly by @stonemuse the same reasons apply as above re. Varoufakis and Greece. For a bespoke deal would threaten the EU by encouraging populists in various nations. Why will the EU27 offer anything when they have their hands full with Catalonia as well as reforms to the Euro and other matters whilst the sun is shining. The idea that the EU27 is going to roll out the red carpet to save some tariffs on Prosecco etc. is both ludicrous and deliberately misleading. They are united and laser focussed and only May's precarious position has led to a change of tone NOT position.
Catalonia is a perfect example of how a large player will treat a smaller one who wishes to "leave" and then requests special treatment.
Please note: none of this is to denegrate Varoufakis for he is both highly intelligent and articulate - as posted before, not only does he take time to write in the Express and Telegraph but he is also in touch with Labour's front bench. For sure he wants change in the EU but we all need to recognise the challenges and limitations which they currently face.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
The guy is on his show every day and is fair minded. At least Ferrari is fair and reasonable not like that other berk who comes on after him, who tells the most blatant lies and only gets his researchers to get lame ducks on whom he can bully.
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
You mean James O’Brien. He’s relatively left wing and pro remain which is why you call him a berk. I listen to Ferrari and O’Brien and enjoy both but there is no way that NF would allow a negative “expert” view on his watch. He’s as swivel eyed on Brexit as the best of them.
I will no longer pick you up on when your spelling or grammar is wrong if that’s what you mean. I presume I can still comment on your posts ?
I dont pick up on your spelling or grammar except once (when you again were at it) , only pedantic idiots do that.
Seth and myself have a gentleman's agreement not to comment or post remarks on each others post. As we are both gents we have followed that. You follow me around the site hence why another poster called you my stalker not me, hence why its creepy.
I call job a berk as he is, if you disagree with his view he talks over you and tries to belittle you. He never lets a member of the public on until about 11.30 after the news bulletin, as he is so wrapped up with himself.
Listen to ian dale now. A Brexiter but allows everyone their view. Different class. I don't agree with anything you say and ditto my views, just keep away and i will.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
The guy is on his show every day and is fair minded. At least Ferrari is fair and reasonable not like that other berk who comes on after him, who tells the most blatant lies and only gets his researchers to get lame ducks on whom he can bully.
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
You mean James O’Brien. He’s relatively left wing and pro remain which is why you call him a berk. I listen to Ferrari and O’Brien and enjoy both but there is no way that NF would allow a negative “expert” view on his watch. He’s as swivel eyed on Brexit as the best of them.
I will no longer pick you up on when your spelling or grammar is wrong if that’s what you mean. I presume I can still comment on your posts ?
I dont pick up on your spelling or grammar except once (when you again were at it) , only pedantic idiots do that.
Seth and myself have a gentleman's agreement not to comment or post remarks on each others post. As we are both gents we have followed that. You follow me around the site hence why another poster called you my stalker not me, hence why its creepy.
I call job a berk as he is, if you disagree with his view he talks over you and tries to belittle you. He never lets a member of the public on until about 11.30 after the news bulletin, as he is so wrapped up with himself.
Listen to ian dale now. A Brexiter but allows everyone their view. Different class. I don't agree with anything you say and ditto my views, just keep away and i will.
I won’t get involved with you in a personal slanging match but it’s you that have re ignited this bad feeling. My post above was commenting on your assertion that Ferrari is fair minded and O’Brien isn’t. Actually they both are but not as far as Brexit is concerned. Perhaps much like you and I.
If and whenever you post something that I either agree or disagree with and feel the need to respond to I will. I have never said I won’t respond to your musings only that I won’t try to get at you because of your poor spelling and grammar and I won’t.
We can agree on one thing though. Yes. Seth is a gentleman.
Left wing remainer on now, and says he's sick of listening to the constant whining of remainers. Join the club.
He and you had better get use to it! Because until there is a shred of evidence that Brexit is not a complete disaster for the UK's future the whining will not stop. And anecdotal tales about what your wife sees happening in her work or what someone's niece's boyfriend, who is a banker, says is not evidence.
Left wing remainer on now, and says he's sick of listening to the constant whining of remainers. Join the club.
He and you had better get use to it! Because until there is a shred of evidence that Brexit is not a complete disaster for the UK's future the whining will not stop. And anecdotal tales about what your wife sees happening in her work or what someone's niece's boyfriend, who is a banker, says is not evidence.
I dont tell tales about my wife and hope you dont about yours.... She works in the industry do you. If you don't you shouldnt comment ... Just keep posting your links...
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
The guy is on his show every day and is fair minded. At least Ferrari is fair and reasonable not like that other berk who comes on after him, who tells the most blatant lies and only gets his researchers to get lame ducks on whom he can bully.
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
I like James O'Brien. I guess LBC do too, because he's delivered huge growth in listening numbers at that timeslot; and they've given him a hefty new contract.
But, I have a question for you @Chippycafc - exactly what "blatant lies" has he told on air? Obviously I wouldn't ask you to name them all (because, if you're right and, as he's on air fifteen hours a week, there could be a lot of them). So, what are the top five "blatant lies" he has told? Specifically.
It would be good to be able to draw up a list in order to furnish a complaint to LBC, the Dept for CMS and Rajar if he does tell "blatant lies"; but if not, maybe you might want to consider whether to withdraw what would be a libellous comment?
What do you think @Chippycafc - do you have a list of "blatant lies" that backs up your accusation?
Left wing remainer on now, and says he's sick of listening to the constant whining of remainers. Join the club.
He and you had better get use to it! Because until there is a shred of evidence that Brexit is not a complete disaster for the UK's future the whining will not stop. And anecdotal tales about what your wife sees happening in her work or what someone's niece's boyfriend, who is a banker, says is not evidence.
I dont tell tales about my wife and hope you dont about yours.... She works in the industry do you. If you don't you shouldnt comment ... Just keep posting your links...
What on earth are you on about? Do you have reading problems as well as problems with your grammar? I didn't state you tell tales about your wife. I remember at least two occasions where you cite your wife's experience in her work to support your view. That is anecdotal. Anacdotal means "...based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation".
I worked for over 30 years in the finance sector (insurance, asset managent) in the city. What is your experience?
And yes I will continue to post links to articles by experts quoting studies and interviews and reports based on ''systematic scientific evaluation' rather than anecdotal stories about family member experiences.
The trouble is, it's not 5,000 jobs that are going to create any new value for the country; it's 5,000 new jobs that will be necessary to deal with the added bureaucracy of a post-Brexit world.
Would you rather have a pal out of work - or doing one of these jobs ? Blair employed thousands of extra civil servants during his time in office.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely in favour of these jobs being created. I agree with Stonemuse that they should have been announced earlier; we've known they were needed for a long time. My issue is that there are so many things in the public service that do not get done as we'd like because there are not the people to do them, yet here we have a system that works reasonably well at present but that will become unmanageable without all that extra labour because of the Brexit decision. The government could have used that funding to take on 5,000 people in the NHS, the police or the education services. Front end stuff that the public is calling out for. Instead, those new jobs are needed to shore up something that was ok before the Brexit vote. If it wasn't so painful it would be a delicious irony that the Brexit campaign featured so prominently the lie about additional funding going to the NHS, yet in reality Brexit is taking away funding that could have been used for such customer facing services.
These 58 industries that they’ve written Brexit reports for but not read/released. I like to think I have an okay knowledge of business/commerce. It looks like it’s pretty much every industry I can think of. Wouldn’t it have been easier for them to release reports on the industries that are going to be okay
These 58 industries that they’ve written Brexit reports for but not read/released. I like to think I have an okay knowledge of business/commerce. It looks like it’s pretty much every industry I can think of. Wouldn’t it have been easier for them to release reports on the industries that are going to be okay
The fact that these reports exist and it is now public knowledge as to their existence, means they must be released.
More terrible news for the UK economy. Manufacturing PMI up from forecast 55.8 to 56.3.............Despite Brexit obviously! Construction PMI expected to come in above forecast tomorrow as well.
Comments
When the EU eventually breaks up, EFTA will be a good fallback for a number of countries
Anyway thought you handshaked to ignore me. Didn't last long.
@stonemuse Having trouble with word count issues replying to the original post so I have copied and pasted this bit here.
Firstly I want to get back to my original point because I think you are being a little too dismissive about it. You are obviously a big fan of FTAs. Indeed, I would say your position is that you don't believe any nation should adopt protectionist policies and that you favour the utopian world envisioned by 19th century economists who believed that a world without tariffs would see perfect competition give rise to an idyllic world where each nation focused only on producing the goods and services it was good at producing which would mean everything is produced with the most efficient cost which means all consumers and everyone else is happy. The world has moved on since the 19th century and is a much more complicated place full of pesky democracies populated not only by consumers but by employees who need jobs to be consumers, who are able influence their country's law makers, civil servants and trade negotiations.
The UK is currently a member of the world's biggest FTA in terms of area and collective GDP. Yet you want out. Why? you either believe in FTAs or you don't. The answer you gave '...but it is for members only' is completely nonsensical. If it wasn't for members only it wouldn't be a FTA. If the UK agrees a FTA with the US will you oppose it because it is only for its two members?
A lot of the rest of your post deals with how you think most trade experts are wrong and that it should be easy to negotiate FTAs with other countries. Which is fine, and a perfectly valid argument to make. But to me it is bit like Fox News still trying to make the case that Hilary's e.mails are the real issue when everyone else knows that the real issue is the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Leaving the world's biggest FTA right on our doorstep is the big issue. That is what is going to cause so much damage to the UK over the next 20 years according to 99% of respected experts and institutions. How long it will take us to negotiate FTAs with Australia, Bangladesh or Norway or any other country is trivial compared to leaving the EU without an agreement that does not allow us to sell our goods and services at competitive prices to EU members.
I will no longer pick you up on when your spelling or grammar is wrong if that’s what you mean. I presume I can still comment on your posts ?
Blair employed thousands of extra civil servants during his time in office.
I’m no economist but doesn’t your 2nd paragraph describe ‘comparative advantage’ which is still the ideal?
I tried to explain why I do not see the EU as a UFT area ... whilst it is a free trade area for members, it applies tariffs and non-tariff barriers to non-members. I do not believe that protectionism is good for world trade and developing markets, nor for consumers.
The two long emails that I posted outline my arguments. That’s it I’m afraid.
It’s what I believe in.
Having got halfway through the book written by the committed EU supporter and anti austerity socialist - Yanis Varoufakis "Adults in the Room My Battle with Europe's Deep Establishment" am inclined to agree with you. If the Brexit negotiations are taking anything like the path he had to navigate in getting approval of his debt relief proposals, we have no chance of an agreement.
Despite having the approval of the IMF, the major EU nations finance ministers, representatives of the ECB, the Council, under the domination of the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble supported by a bloc of "cheerleaders" comprised of Lithuania and the other east European states, refused to give way on a single proposal and insisted on continued maximum Greek austerity. Of the representatives of the bodies and countries who had outside given him support, none said a word in support at the official Euro Group meeting. Varoufakis observation -None of the EU state Finance Ministers were presented with any briefing papers on the topics being voted on any of the meetings. "A reasonable and impartial spectator might have concluded that the Ministers presence is to approve and legitimise the decisions already made.
There are numerous other quotes decrying the lack of any democratic processes.
That is not to say this has altered Varoufakis belief that the EU is a valuable institution and a power for good, and I respect that view, but its inherent undemocratic constitution relies on the goodwill and integrity of its officials, or sweeping reform. Neither of which I personally have any faith in.
If Greece is not to dissolve into absolute financial ruin and poverty, it has no option but to believe in the EU as a saviour. The UK is fortunately not in such a parlous position.
Anyone who as an article of faith thinks the EU is a democratic institution @seth plum might gain an alternative perspective from someone who has experienced it. Reading these accounts of EU meetings, and even allowing for the bias of the author, the use of blackmail and lying about the actions which would be taken if the Councils's ultimatums were ignored, will be illuminating.
In the end the impasse that allowed debt relief for Greece to be approved was broken when Angela Merkal intervened and Schauble was ordered him to retreat from his ideological austerity position.
Basically countries have to resolve their own issues and make structural reforms so as to keep up with the more effective economies. The Mail, Express and Telegraph highlight every story about far right parties winning support and how the Italian economy is on the brink of collapse. However, the reality is that Eurozone GDP growth has just been clocked at 2.5% year on year and unemployment is still falling. And the far right poll 15%.
We have differed on our perspective on Italian banks - the fact is that 25% of the NPL mountain has been taken care of this year and the Italian economy is picking up which in turn will raise the value of the underlying assets in the remaining portfolios. The Italians are also addressing the court processes associated with NPLs so as to cut collection costs and speed up proceedings which take far too long. Is that undemocratic or a common sense solution?
Greece is now growing and needs to collect taxes and find more ways to grow - perhaps Greece and southern Italy should monetise their position on the front line of people trafficking across the Med for that is a concern to the whole continent. Perhaps Greece and Italy are the natural places to house some military installations to assist with the inevitable conflicts in the Middle East and Africa?
Back to the UK: we were in a perfect position to negotiate reforms in the EU for we were by far the largest economy NOT in the Eurozone. There are effectively two types of nation in the EU and EFTA: Those in the Euro and those outside. Several posters have reached the consensus that we should stay in EFTA and that is the obvious solution today for March 2019. That is the majority view in this country and it has also been the Varoufakis position since Article 50 was triggered last March.
The only question is whether this common sense view will win through and whether it will be May, Corbyn or somebody else that delivers it. I suspect May and Hammond would opt for this solution tomorrow if they could but the hard Brexit fanatics won't let them. So the matter is being dragged out with the risk that uncertainty damage the economy as well as leaving us open to "no deal". There is also the distinct possibility that this struggle will tear the Conservative party apart but many cannot see a downside to that scenario!
There is no bespoke deal on offer from the EU27 and there never will be! Despite the position articulated clearly by @stonemuse the same reasons apply as above re. Varoufakis and Greece. For a bespoke deal would threaten the EU by encouraging populists in various nations. Why will the EU27 offer anything when they have their hands full with Catalonia as well as reforms to the Euro and other matters whilst the sun is shining. The idea that the EU27 is going to roll out the red carpet to save some tariffs on Prosecco etc. is both ludicrous and deliberately misleading. They are united and laser focussed and only May's precarious position has led to a change of tone NOT position.
Catalonia is a perfect example of how a large player will treat a smaller one who wishes to "leave" and then requests special treatment.
Please note: none of this is to denegrate Varoufakis for he is both highly intelligent and articulate - as posted before, not only does he take time to write in the Express and Telegraph but he is also in touch with Labour's front bench. For sure he wants change in the EU but we all need to recognise the challenges and limitations which they currently face.
Seth and myself have a gentleman's agreement not to comment or post remarks on each others post. As we are both gents we have followed that. You follow me around the site hence why another poster called you my stalker not me, hence why its creepy.
I call job a berk as he is, if you disagree with his view he talks over you and tries to belittle you. He never lets a member of the public on until about 11.30 after the news bulletin, as he is so wrapped up with himself.
Listen to ian dale now. A Brexiter but allows everyone their view. Different class. I don't agree with anything you say and ditto my views, just keep away and i will.
If and whenever you post something that I either agree or disagree with and feel the need to respond to I will. I have never said I won’t respond to your musings only that I won’t try to get at you because of your poor spelling and grammar and I won’t.
We can agree on one thing though. Yes. Seth is a gentleman.
But, I have a question for you @Chippycafc - exactly what "blatant lies" has he told on air? Obviously I wouldn't ask you to name them all (because, if you're right and, as he's on air fifteen hours a week, there could be a lot of them). So, what are the top five "blatant lies" he has told? Specifically.
It would be good to be able to draw up a list in order to furnish a complaint to LBC, the Dept for CMS and Rajar if he does tell "blatant lies"; but if not, maybe you might want to consider whether to withdraw what would be a libellous comment?
What do you think @Chippycafc - do you have a list of "blatant lies" that backs up your accusation?
I worked for over 30 years in the finance sector (insurance, asset managent) in the city. What is your experience?
And yes I will continue to post links to articles by experts quoting studies and interviews and reports based on ''systematic scientific evaluation' rather than anecdotal stories about family member experiences.