Is the end nigh for the Euro? [vol. 3]
Discussion
Posted elsewhere on NP&E, but this recently published Chatham House survey "What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?" (yes, I'd be the first to agree surveys can miss the mark) could make things very interesting int he EU. It paints a very, very similar picture to the issues surrounding the UK referendum:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-d...
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-d...
Interesting piece on Bloomberg today that suggests that despite BERXIT; the UK will outperform the other big 4 economies in the next 10 years... Predicts growth @ 2% from 2020; with Germany & France at around 1% and Spain & Italy 0.5.
Course if we voted to stay in it would actually been 2% larger in total in 2021, BUT the sky's not falling and over the longer term that small loss gets recovered. Probably.
Interesting it cites the UKs working age population and increasing productivity as the main drivers (compared to a greying in Europe). Explains a few things on Govt approach to immigration!
Course if we voted to stay in it would actually been 2% larger in total in 2021, BUT the sky's not falling and over the longer term that small loss gets recovered. Probably.
Interesting it cites the UKs working age population and increasing productivity as the main drivers (compared to a greying in Europe). Explains a few things on Govt approach to immigration!
Well, with Tony Blair presenting a singularly effective display of being totally and completely out of touch with the both the feelings and concerns, of the UK electorate and demonstrating a remarkable ability to offend most of the population, all of the time, all hope of a swift return to power from that direction, seems to be happily buried currently?
Remarkably Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been equally successful in undermining his own position and that the Labour party really is absolutely determined to lose the next election as heavily as possible! How any reasonable Labour supporter can pretend to believe the utter nonsense that has become the position of Labour currently is totally beyond me.
There really is no coherent policy from Labour supported by even the vaguest suggestion as to how any of these polices could possibly be paid for or indeed being any way affordable. That combination of madness really does contrast appallingly with the at least believable offerings of Labour only a few years ago. Come back Peter Mandelsson all is forgiven, must surely be the hopes of any of the few true believers still looking for a way to return Labor to some semblance of believable politics.
The new Leader of UKIP has also double blotted his copy book culminating in an apology for claiming that he was personal friends with some of those who died in the Hillsborough, which he has now admitted was totally untrue! In addition various qualifications and aggrandisement' had been accidentally (!!!) included in his CV in his recent election as leader of UK?
It all defies belief really, absolutely pathetic and dishonest and thoroughly disgraceful. Tragically such outright and easily disproved lies and falsehoods are becoming all too frequent in modern politics.
To return directly to the subject of this thread I have watched with interest
as the comments have been coming through and I have been enjoying the banter!! Stongle, Welshbeef, Digga, Smiffymoto, LongQ, Murphy7355, and fblm, amongst many others really have been making very good points and been considering many of the fundamental problems that are facing all of Europe and the EU in particular?
To my mind timing is really becoming crucial now. The longer the efforts take to actually bring forward a sufficiently cohesive policy document for the enactment of Article 50, the more difficult t will become for the government to bring this into Parliament and force it through debate and to achieve an approval by Parliament.
This is still only the first step of a complex series of debates and discussions which will again take time to be ironed out and approved I think we are in a particularly difficult position currently and there can be no quick fixes!
But enough of my thoughts on here. What do the rest of this group is likely to happen? Anyone ready to anticipate when the initial Article 50 debates might be before the House. Not for some time, I think!
Remarkably Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been equally successful in undermining his own position and that the Labour party really is absolutely determined to lose the next election as heavily as possible! How any reasonable Labour supporter can pretend to believe the utter nonsense that has become the position of Labour currently is totally beyond me.
There really is no coherent policy from Labour supported by even the vaguest suggestion as to how any of these polices could possibly be paid for or indeed being any way affordable. That combination of madness really does contrast appallingly with the at least believable offerings of Labour only a few years ago. Come back Peter Mandelsson all is forgiven, must surely be the hopes of any of the few true believers still looking for a way to return Labor to some semblance of believable politics.
The new Leader of UKIP has also double blotted his copy book culminating in an apology for claiming that he was personal friends with some of those who died in the Hillsborough, which he has now admitted was totally untrue! In addition various qualifications and aggrandisement' had been accidentally (!!!) included in his CV in his recent election as leader of UK?
It all defies belief really, absolutely pathetic and dishonest and thoroughly disgraceful. Tragically such outright and easily disproved lies and falsehoods are becoming all too frequent in modern politics.
To return directly to the subject of this thread I have watched with interest
as the comments have been coming through and I have been enjoying the banter!! Stongle, Welshbeef, Digga, Smiffymoto, LongQ, Murphy7355, and fblm, amongst many others really have been making very good points and been considering many of the fundamental problems that are facing all of Europe and the EU in particular?
To my mind timing is really becoming crucial now. The longer the efforts take to actually bring forward a sufficiently cohesive policy document for the enactment of Article 50, the more difficult t will become for the government to bring this into Parliament and force it through debate and to achieve an approval by Parliament.
This is still only the first step of a complex series of debates and discussions which will again take time to be ironed out and approved I think we are in a particularly difficult position currently and there can be no quick fixes!
But enough of my thoughts on here. What do the rest of this group is likely to happen? Anyone ready to anticipate when the initial Article 50 debates might be before the House. Not for some time, I think!
Way back,when this thread was started by Steffan,the original thoughts of Euro curracy collapse was a product of the financial crash and sovereign debt,IF I remember correctly.
Now we have moved onto,currancy collapse,immigration and the whole viabilty of the EU and political union and Brexit.
There is only one thing I am sure of. I am more confused than I was in 2011.
Now we have moved onto,currancy collapse,immigration and the whole viabilty of the EU and political union and Brexit.
There is only one thing I am sure of. I am more confused than I was in 2011.
smifffymoto said:
Way back,when this thread was started by Steffan,the original thoughts of Euro curracy collapse was a product of the financial crash and sovereign debt,IF I remember correctly.
Now we have moved onto,currancy collapse,immigration and the whole viabilty of the EU and political union and Brexit.
There is only one thing I am sure of. I am more confused than I was in 2011.
There is a massive lack of leadership and vision - due to no evident "solutions" being made public in all this time raises concerns higher that there is little they have to be able to tackle the problem. Now we have moved onto,currancy collapse,immigration and the whole viabilty of the EU and political union and Brexit.
There is only one thing I am sure of. I am more confused than I was in 2011.
Write Greek debt off banks are in trouble
Write Greek debt off other countries will want relief too
Massive youth unemployment over many of the struggling countries - should the govt of hose countries decide to lower state pension age and forced retirement to nip the youth unemployment in the bid instead of kicking the can down the road.
They could possibly create MASSIVE QE on a scale not even dreamt of previously and given every man woman and child an equal share
Welshbeef said:
There is a massive lack of leadership and vision - due to no evident "solutions" being made public in all this time raises concerns higher that there is little they have to be able to tackle the problem.
This in a nutshell was the single strongest argument for voting to Leave. The only vision in Europe is coming from the likes Guy Verhofstadt who sees the solution clearly as going into full on Federalism, and as fast as possible. There is no reasonable solution that the majority would or could buy into.It says a lot that our political class rather than looking at the blindingly obvious that is right in front of them the past 8+ years have become obsessed with listening to ranting old bigots in the street.
Bit disappointing this has dropped down the pages….
Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
stongle said:
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
I was once told that a fully laden supertanker, traveling at full steam will require 15 miles to come to a dead stop, with the engines in full reverse. I'm not sure of the exact veracity of those stats, but it is that sort of consideration of the dynamics involved that makes you realise a.) how long events can take to unfold and b.) how slow the system reaction time is to operator input.All things considered, the magnitude of the EU is enormous. Pointing out faults, even severe ones, is one thing, but trying to estimate either the time of impact, the crew's ability to react and the ships ability to respond to input is, on the most part, impossible, speculative.
stongle said:
Bit disappointing this has dropped down the pages….
Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
Great post. With respect to the divorce bill one thing I'm not clear from the reporting is if the 50-100bn number is net or gross. It is only right that we pay into programmes that we have already committed to but obviously we are usually significant beneficiaries of the same, or are we expected to still pay whilst getting cut out of any remaining benefits?Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
fblm said:
Great post. With respect to the divorce bill one thing I'm not clear from the reporting is if the 50-100bn number is net or gross. It is only right that we pay into programmes that we have already committed to but obviously we are usually significant beneficiaries of the same, or are we expected to still pay whilst getting cut out of any remaining benefits?
A share of the debt for a share of the assets. No assets = no debt.
fblm said:
stongle said:
Bit disappointing this has dropped down the pages….
Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
Great post. With respect to the divorce bill one thing I'm not clear from the reporting is if the 50-100bn number is net or gross. It is only right that we pay into programmes that we have already committed to but obviously we are usually significant beneficiaries of the same, or are we expected to still pay whilst getting cut out of any remaining benefits?Anyway, I was at an event at JP Morgan yesterday with Andrew Marr as the keynote speaker. Despite being a thoroughly all round top chap; he had some very interesting insights on Brexit (and other political skull doggery).
Being fairly in the loop with all matters political (and the people at the horses mouth), there was some really interesting insight. In no specific order….
• It’s a hard Brexit; but with frictionless access to the EU is looking to be the most likely outcome. Germany is heavily pushing for a low tariff access and as little trade barriers as possible. Although we will be out of the Free Market and customs union, a punishing deal is not being pursued regardless of the EC’s rhetoric. That saying the EU has several hundred hardened trade negotiators; we currently only have a few enthusiastic amateurs!. Opening up a second front with the UK is definitely not on the agenda given the economic problems within the Eurozone and problems they have in the Eastern Europe (very anti-EU) and that Bulgaria and others if not; could become proto-fascist states. Also very interesting was that many of the Brexiters in Govt do NOT want to slash immigration. Like many others, they view this as economic suicide (interesting parallel with the US and Trump; with Silicon valley taken him on viz immigration) …
• The most contentious issue on Brexit will be the divorce bill. The UK has signed up for various commitments that it will have to honour. Whether its the full EUR50bn, is another matter. We debated this quite a bit after. The consensus view is that 50bn is chump change in the scheme of things (especially if you look at the deficit). The problem will be selling that to the Daily Mail. This will become May’s biggest problem going forward. It really isn’t a lot of money to move on and get out of a protracted and damaging negotiation (its only about 7 times what RBS loses a year – if we settle at full whack). Selling a number that large to the JAMs etc is going to proper difficult especially when viewed against NHS funding. Its going to be quite a polarising debate. I wonder if the City might stump up some of it (and probably we should).
• Marine le Pen, is more anti-EU than the UK. She absolutely wants to break up the Eurozone, and Macron has a very difficult task to beat her in the upcoming election. Not impossible, but Le Pen can mobilise votes much more effectively. Brexit then Trump, she sees herself in the ascendency.
• Scotland come up, and that was interesting. Sturgeon has a real problem, as there will be no direct access deal she will have to call the referendum either this year or next. The problem being is that – economically Scotland cannot exist independently NOR would be eligible for EUR membership (and it takes lots of years to get membership). It’s quite likely that the referendum would be lost, thus finishing the SNP.
• Italy’s economy and looming constitutional crisis just adds to the EU woes.
Obviously a lot of this has been discussed already, but fascinating that these are Government discussions from insiders.
A couple of points. Not many people want to cut immigration, they want to cut net immigration, where the number of immigrants is growing.
It is healthy for an economy and natural for an open, outward looking country to have a turnover of immigrants coming in to make money, service the economy and then go home, being replaced by others.
I also object to the enthusiastic amateurs quip. Whilst we haven't had responsibility for trade deals, we have alot of well qualified negotiators willing to contribute, and given the awful track record of the EU in doing trade deals, theirs are hardly stellar...!
Stongle did they broach the subject of how long this will all take. Apparently the technocrats hate the set of bilateral treaties they have with Switzerland but it looks like the push will be for a similar, but uniquely different, and bespoke to the UK set of bilateral treaties. When political will meets bureaucratic impediment the usual result is fudge and jam tomorrow (i.e. make it look like a result whilst hiding the fact its a crock not finished yet).
Welshbeef said:
A share of the debt for a share of the assets.
No assets = no debt.
You a divorce lawyer, or something? No assets = no debt.
Hopefully those (enthusiastic amateurs I think was a cheeky joke) negotiating are a tad more pragmatic. FWIW, the 35bn to get shot of the place would be worth it (35 is where I think it'll land +\- 5). Happy to put in if they're having a whip round (or is it reacharound)?
NJH said:
Stongle did they broach the subject of how long this will all take. Apparently the technocrats hate the set of bilateral treaties they have with Switzerland but it looks like the push will be for a similar, but uniquely different, and bespoke to the UK set of bilateral treaties. When political will meets bureaucratic impediment the usual result is fudge and jam tomorrow (i.e. make it look like a result whilst hiding the fact its a crock not finished yet).
Unfortunately not, what was clear was the significant political will to make this an amicable and workable divorce with minimal damage (in my mind that means an equivalence deal up front whilst we pick through the detail till the next ice age). There's a risk I missed a few points, it was a long day and we finished the evening in Obica with smelly cheese and a lot of wine (telling yarns about pre 2008 banking daring-do)...
stongle said:
Welshbeef said:
A share of the debt for a share of the assets.
No assets = no debt.
You a divorce lawyer, or something? No assets = no debt.
Hopefully those (enthusiastic amateurs I think was a cheeky joke) negotiating are a tad more pragmatic. FWIW, the 35bn to get shot of the place would be worth it (35 is where I think it'll land +\- 5). Happy to put in if they're having a whip round (or is it reacharound)?
Welshbeef said:
Just using the SNP argument against rUK on taking on divorce settlement and share of assets they have paid for if not no payment.
Struggling to follow that one, wouldn't the Scottish owe us in any divorce? Sorry if wrong end of stick, still suffering from last night - was a big one; after the Afghan Beer Limo (Uber) dropped me outside my house I walked the wrong way up the street for a few hundred meters before I realised I was walking away from my front door!Welshbeef said:
stongle said:
Welshbeef said:
A share of the debt for a share of the assets.
No assets = no debt.
You a divorce lawyer, or something? No assets = no debt.
Hopefully those (enthusiastic amateurs I think was a cheeky joke) negotiating are a tad more pragmatic. FWIW, the 35bn to get shot of the place would be worth it (35 is where I think it'll land +\- 5). Happy to put in if they're having a whip round (or is it reacharound)?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff