robbin

Azira wrote: "I genuinely didn't. After I read your less than measured reply, I asked my colleagues what they would think if someone was discussing national vs high street banks and, like me, they thought it was someone talking about national-based banks like RBS rather than central banks. I guess a lot of us financial reg lawyers are obtuse, huh." Fair enough, but those I work with are not. Indeed, in the context of my post (which talked about states (Italy/Spain) defaulting, I'm surprised there could be any such misunderstanding. Maybe your colleagues weren't given that detail, otherwise they may have taken a different view. Also, it's only really in the USA that "national" banks might have a different meaning - but here we were discussing Europe.

I just don't get all this confident stating of things as facts when I am suspecting you don't actually know (not a criticism - I probably don't either, but it shows the danger of crappy scaremongering debate from both sides). For example, you state as if fact - "immigrants pay taxes (as they have a very high employment rate). They more than cover the costs of the public services they use" - Where are the figure for that please? If it's right its right, but is that even measured? If you are instinctively in favour of remaining, fine, you are as entitled to your view as anyone else, but stating facts or presuming things as facts upon which other inferences are then drawn, I find rather disconcerting, not to mention unconvincing. On that note, you also say "The second point is simply the result of how tariffs work Robin. It has nothing to do with a boycott. When trade tariffs are applicable, the cost of imported goods goes up like for like. That's not speculation." Well, I agree it is not speculation that when tariffs are applicable the costs of goods go up. To be honest that's pretty obvious and I couldn't argue against it. But, it is another statement of fact which is not fact. It is (contrary to what you imply) indeed speculation that there would be tariffs imposed by UK against EU imports. The likelihood is that there would NOT be such tariffs imposed and that we would ultimately do a deal with our EU allies to facilitate the continuation of tariff free trade. Free trade is recognised as in everyone's interests and where we are neighbours and trading countries it would make no sense to raise tariffs. This is something I don't understand about the Remain arguments - our EU allies would not suddenly become enemies and in a trade war with us because we vote to leave in a couple of years time - that's errant nonsense and Cameron scaremongering. Actually, even he hasn't openly or directly said tariffs would be imposed because that's a bonkers suggestion. He just sort of implies it and leaves the fear to the imagination of voters. It seems you have bought into it. I haven't, although the fear tactics are definitely making me nervous as I'm sure they do many others.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cameron has always been staunchly in favour of > Turkey joining the EU. > > Strangely, so has Boris. Indeed. If we stay in - we will be joined by Turkey. It's what the UK govt wants (although just now it is painfully difficult to admit) and it is clearly what EU Commission wants (as they stressed again just 48 hours ago when they said they were "accelerating" turkey's application for EU membership (not the best timing for Cameron that!). Personally I believe we will stay in, so we will see. Another million or two residents for our NHS and schools to accommodate.

Sorry LM, I don't really follow. Re (1) I don't see how (as you suggest) the "the UK export business will shrink as the higher cost to customers in the UK market will reduce demand". Firstly, what has demand in the UK market got to do with our exports? Secondly, why will there be higher costs to customers in the UK market? Thirdly, we can still buy from EU - they are hardly going to refuse to sell their products to us! Fourthly, I don't see the link between the UK export business and higher cost to customers in the UK market (even if there was any - which you simply presume without saying why). Re (2) You postulate "EU imports will also become more expensive increasing price inflation domestically." Why? You can't just say that like it's gospel - why would prices increase? EU exporters will still want to sell to us and will want to stay competitive. Are you suggesting some sort of South African boycott of the UK by the EU?? We will still be allies and close trading partners - not sworn enemies. Cameron might say the sky will fall in, but that doesn't make it so. The world won't start turning the other way on its axis causing tsunamis in the UK. Trolls with French accents won't really jump out from under Thames bridges and eat us up. Those are about the only scare stories I haven't yet heard from Cameron. But there's still 3 days to go...

Cameron has always been staunchly in favour of Turkey joining the EU. He is only backtracking (sort of) now out of desperation... This from 2 years ago (before the referendum was announced) 7:51PM GMT 09 Dec 2014 - Daily Telegraph David Cameron has said that he still ?very much supports? Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. The Prime Minister was quizzed about his support for Turkey?s accession to the EU during a visit to Turkey to meet the country?s Prime Minister and President. Mr Cameron said he had discussed Turkey?s accession to the EU during talks in Ankara on Tuesday afternoon with Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Prime Minister. The visit was his first since 2010 when he told the Turks the backed the country?s goal of joining the EU. He said then that he wanted to ?make the case? for Turkey?s EU membership. Asked if he still felt that way despite his Government?s inability to control inward migration from EU countries and bring net migration down to the tens of thousands of people, he said that he had discussed it again with Turkish Prime Minister. He said: ?In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that. ?That?s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today?. In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: ?I?m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.? He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy". A European Union without Turkey at its heart was ?not stronger but weaker... not more secure but less... not richer but poorer?.

Sorry - before I reply, how is it quite the opposite?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide, > flesh and bone expert > > https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/vid > eos/1293361974024537/ Ha ha ha ha! Seriously???!!! That's brilliant. This man's entire career as a lecturer/professor in EU law rests on being an expert in and teaching EU law. If we no longer have EU law (and therefore no particular need for experts in it), do you not think he might be somewhat adversely affected (to put it very mildly) and therefore he has something of a vested interest?!!!

Actually, I just noticed you mentioned Ireland or Frankfurt, so please ignore my reference to the sunshine!

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heh @ the comment about ignorance (particularly > from someone who doesn't appear to know the basics > of the EU insolvency and recovery regime). I > think you mean "central banks" dearie. > > You are quite right that the BRRD affects credit > institutions, but, as you'd used the incorrect > terminology, it was unclear what you were talking > about. And you also don't appear to understand > how BRRD works. Bail-in converts lower ranking > tiers of debt into equity, so hardly the person on > the street. > > Before you start being rude about someone's > alleged lack of knowledge on a topic, you may want > to make sure you're using the correct terms. > With the greatest of respect, I think unless someone were choosing to be purposely obtuse it should be obvious what I meant by 'national' banks as opposed to 'high street' banks. I'm afraid in my field, when we talk about 'national' banks in this context, all the financial and regulatory lawyers around the table know what we are talking about. Internationally, "national bank" is synonymous with "central bank," or a bank controlled by the national government of a country. Central banks set monetary policies within national economies. By the way that's a quote from Investopedia, but really, I think if that's your best point then there's not much more I want to add, as I don't really feel the need to justify using that well known term! You will notice I haven't referred to you as "dearie" on that point. In that regard, while complaining about the condescension of others I note your attempt to be patronising by using that term. That's fine - I have a thicker skin than you appear to, but you'd do well to choose a better point by which to do so, I think. As for how the BRRD works, well, it doesn't apply to central banks, so I think the debate on BRRD must end there mustn't it? It's clear I didn't choose my words well and upset you by referring to your knowledge and so I apologise for that. I just thought that the reference to the BRRD (which has no application to the situation we were talking about - i.e. of a state defaulting) indicated only a limited level of knowledge. I should have been more diplomatic. I wouldn't panic if I were you, in the (unlikely) event there is a 'Leave' majority vote this week. The sky won't fall in. Longer term we will also be able to enter into free trade agreements with huge markets like India and China, which we are barred from doing individually as part of the EU (the EU talks opened with India in relation to their massive economy in 2007, but still no great progress!). Australia is another Commonwealth country we have always had close ties with (as with India) but which we are barred from having our own free trade deal with as part of the EU. There will be plenty of economic opportunities far exceeding those in the EU (in regard to which, after all, we are net importers, not net exporters). It would be a shame if because of scaremongering from people who cannot be trusted (eg Dodgy Dave), or people with vested interests, you took a short term view and left to move abroad to some EU country. Go for the sunshine by all means, or the food, but not for the wrong/short term reasons!

Renata's earlier post... "It is for this reason that we jointly drafted a letter to residents to inform them of appropriate methods of disposing of unwanted furniture, white goods and other electricals when they move out. Renata" I don't doubt your good intentions Renata, but I suspect the people fly tipping are not doing so because they don't know the appropriate methods of disposal - I imagine they just can't be arsed and/or don't want to pay to dispose of their rubbish properly! No number of nicely worded letters trying to 'educate them' will have any effect.

Oh, I just read your next post and it seems it is indicative! The Directive you refer to does not relate to national banks and nations defaulting - its relates to credit institutions operating in the private sector. Also, and in any event the point about bail-ins is absurd - you have it the wrong way round - this actually makes the point against your argument. The whole idea of a so-called 'bail-in' is that creditors take the hit - i.e. us in the UK if and when other countries start to default - then we as creditors would in your bail-in scenario get screwed!

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you mean by "national banks" rather than > high street banks? In any case, the Banking > Resolution and Recovery Directive means that in > the first instance there is a bail-in, rather than > bail-out. > > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It comes principally from national banks (for a > > national bailout) not from high street banks > and > > if there is a default and a subsequent > write-off > > of monies loaned then there is a loss to the > > national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid > by > > us to the USA with interest - we didn't default > > and they were not written off - you are > comparing > > apples and oranges. Err, what do I mean by "national Banks" rather than "high street banks" Hmmm, let's think... how about the following national banks: the Bank of England, Banque de France, Deutsche Bundesbank, Banca D'Italia, De Nederlandsche Bank... etc (as a few examples) High Street Banks - (do you really need examples?) Clear enough? I trust that question's not indicative of the limit of your knowledge of the issues?!

It comes principally from national banks (for a national bailout) not from high street banks and if there is a default and a subsequent write-off of monies loaned then there is a loss to the national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid by us to the USA with interest - we didn't default and they were not written off - you are comparing apples and oranges.

Google Martin Schultz to find out his view - he's the President of the European Parliament. He is quite clear that there is no guarantee Dodgy Dave's February deal will be passed (in his Parliament), and until then he says it is not binding on anyone. Blah Blah, you seem completely certain, so are these other people out of their minds? Surely there is material doubt over the true position. It might not be what you would like to hear, but that doesn't mean it's not so.

No. Read the article (and many others). It's nothing like as simple as you suggest.

rendelharris Wrote: > > We already have an agreement, made in February and > to be implemented if we vote to remain, that > Eurozone countries will have to bear the cost of > any future bailout, not us: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu > m-36456277 You really think it's that certain? It's not. Dodgy Dave's February 'agreement' is not in any EU treaty... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/feb/24/david-cameron-eu-deal-legally-binding-michael-gove-analysis-joshua-rozenberg

To put it another way, the answer may or may not lie in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 under the heading "lawful excuse". I'm not saying either way, but you might be able to answer your question (about whether it would be illegal) by reading that.

What about the price we will have to pay if we stay in and as seems likely Italy and/or Spain default like Greece did (but with a far, far larger bailout required and a much worse effect on EU growth)? It's what the bond markets seem to be pointing towards - Japanese type stagnation for decades to come. Short term cost to leaving, for sure. But we don't (or shouldn't) live for the short term only...

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi sizemore, > If someone did paint or add something else on such > an illegal advertisement would that be or not be a > criminal act? > It appears council officers won't act unless it > causes visual harm. > Someone could have some fun with this... James, are you confident that is not an incitement to cause criminal damage? Vandalism of the sign (property belonging to another) would surely amount to criminal damage just as damaging an illegal vehicle parked on the public highway without tax or MOT would be. It's entirely up to you James, but you might want to reflect on that posting (particularly the last sentence!). After all, you are an elected representative and presumably in favour of upholding the law.

Ha! Excellent.

Latest: Remain a member of the European Union 96 81% Leave the European Union 19 16% Unsure 4 3% Other 0 0% Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting and a good idea, but asking the EDF users how they would vote on this issue is a bit like doing a straw poll of Guardian subscribers in Hampstead! It's certainly way out of kilter with the rest of the UK.

Walked past it this morning. The palm tree looks really good. The old printer, ironing board, plastic shelving and broken pedal bin and other crap next to it don't look so good though. Anti-social scum will always be about, dumping their litter, I'm afraid. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Thanks James.

Otta wrote: James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to sell alcohol than their planning permission allows. > I objected to the licence application. Why? (just out of interest) James - I think you answered the wrong question (or at least I thought you did). Why did you object to the licence application? (not why did M&S apply for longer times). I'm also interested in why, as a local representative, you objected to the licence application.

It's also not a relevant consideration here - shouting "fire" is meant to get attention and that may or not be the case, but here there would obviously have been staff and customers all over the place - it was not a problem getting attention, the problem was that the police (are said to have) taken a while to get there. Calling the Fire Brigade obviously would not have helped with that! I don't think you would be thanked for wasting the Fire Brigade's time! Just saying.