Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[798686]

You sir are a cake denier of the worst sort, now pay a huge amount of money upfront and maybe I will let you know how many are in a box before you buy it....

Piss off - you've got to make sufficient progress on specifying how many cakes you'll give me before we can even discuss whether I'll give you preferential access to the biscuit tin!!

You've got two weeks, and the clock is ticking...

 

[southeastone]

Piss off - you've got to make sufficient progress on specifying how many cakes you'll give me before we can even discuss whether I'll give you preferential access to the biscuit tin!!

You've got two weeks, and the clock is ticking...

Love it when you get all butch

 

[Perados]

Piss off - you've got to make sufficient progress on specifying how many cakes you'll give me before we can even discuss whether I'll give you preferential access to the biscuit tin!!

You've got two weeks, and the clock is ticking...

How can you argue about biscut and cake? You still should be full of Extrawurst

 

[southeastone]

How can you argue about biscut and cake? You still should be full of Extrawurst

You keep your wurst to yourself you naughty boy, we Brits have standards you know!

 

[798686]

How can you argue about biscut and cake? You still should be full of Extrawurst

We only want to eat out!

But we're being accused of cherry picking from the menu, and being asked to pay for the privilege of eating in, even though we're going to be eating out!

How about we eat in for two more years, while we're eating the extra wurst we've already ordered - then we'll just have take-aways, thanks.

 

[Perados]

You keep your wurst to yourself you naughty boy, we Brits have standards you know!

You demanded them quite often in the past years

 

[southeastone]

You demanded them quite often in the past years

But maybe now we see bigger wurst in the rest of the world

 

[Perados]

But maybe now we see bigger wurst in the rest of the world

If they are willing to pay them for you, I have no problem with it.
Mahlzeit!

But bigger doesn't has to mean better taste

 

[Jason]

It's a fucking biscuit!

We'll soon have an argument between Cakemoaners and Biscuiteers!

Isn't it a soggy biscuit?

 

[dandelion]

your argument that the Tories want to "fail" but somehow blame it on Labour would be a very good strategy. This is assuming that Labour and/or the Liberals won't be able to straighten out this constitutional and economic crisis that Cameron allowed to develop.

Thing is, regardless of whether labour can find a way through, the conservatives cannot. If they stay in power they are guaranteed it will end badly and they will be blamed. if they get blamed voters will switch to labour. So far better to get out now, which stops blame accruing to them and await events, because at least then there is a chance for labour to fail.

But even getting out is difficult, because they cannot be seen to be voluntarily giving up control . They have to be in a situation where they are seen to have tried but failed. The best way to do that, and I think this what they are doing, is to go for the very hardest of Brexits. Hard brexiteers can hardly fault them for that, even while it alienates more and more of the nation and becomes self defeating.

51 % could easily take the opposite choice within a week's time.

Thy already have. The majority to leave has already become one to remain, whatever the politicians are saying. There is a whopping majority against hard Brexit, which is still conservative policy.

Without the UK being in the EU, Germany will look much more like a predator nation that some believe that Germany has become.

Ironical that Germany might want the Uk to stay, so that the UK shares the running of the EU. ironical that is since the leavers keep denying we have any control over the EU.

I am not predicting that the EU might suffer just as much as the UK due to the UK pulling out of the EU. I am stating that the possibilities are there.

Police in helicopters again... The Uk has closed its home based industries and now has multinationals set up to operate on a trans EU model. This is all going to unwind and they will not stay in the Uk because it makes no economic sense to do so. They have no personal loyalty to the Uk, they are no longer Uk companies except nominally.

I'm back!

indeed welcome back.

for a man who is 66

Did someone say Mugabe is 93. busy fighting to stay absolute ruler of a nation? Way to go yet!

 

[dandelion]

I suggest that once the decision has been made to hold a referendum the result must be represented.

Well the result was that only 1/3 of the nation voted to leave. So we ought to be staying....

You also seem to be forgetting that the essence of democracy is that people are asked again and again if they have changed their minds, and that gets acted upon. latest polling gives remain leading. Hard Brexit is massively opposed.

 

[dandelion]

It is also true that going the no deal option could bring down the UK economy at least for the short term.

Its the long term bothering me....

The EU is a hybrid organization. Economically the EU functions as a nation except for the fact that there is no joint fiscal policy.

There has been lots of argument over what the EU is, because it does not fit the normal patterns. Its more autonomous than most international organisations, but does not have the self determination of a nation. The issue in the US became whether it was a coalition of states, or an indivisible whole which members could not lawfully leave. We know the answer, the EU is not a nation because we are able to leave it at will. The US is a nation because members cannot leave.

the EU and the member nations' Parliaments are now sharing the sovereignty power.

No, they arent. The EU is in the position of a UK local council. It has powers to pass laws, impose taxes, carry out functions, but only according to powers granted by westminster. It cannot change its own remit without the consent of westminster, whereas westminster can change its remit. The problem for westminster in relation to the EU is that the EU is an international treaty with other nations who have similar vetos over changes to the EU. So the ability to revise the agreement depends on the consent of others and can only in practice be done gradually. Or we have the choice to simply leave and do without that international arrangement.

Every citizen has the right to quit their job and get another, but most dont. Certainly not until they have another lined up.

All of the above is there to defend my position that EU will either advance to a confederation like Canada or a federation like Germany and the US have or the EU will fall apart at some point in the future.

I have said, if the EU ceased to exist the nations of europe would reinvent it. Because we all want international cooperation, with an arbiter to resolve disputes. Even Brexiters are basically saying this is all they want, just a rearrangement of the relationship.

If that were to happen and the UK were to also be a part. London would be the financial capital of the new nation and could possibly replace Brussels as being the real center of political power.

But if we leave London will disappear as a financial centre. Its inevitable. Its a choice to get out of the game!

 

[dandelion]

The referendum act should have included information on the time and manner of triggering article 50 (if leave one), and as such should also have specified a leave date, which of course we are still arguing about. It should have been clear that out of the EU means out of single market and customs union. The debate didn't even look at countless key matters.

There is no 'should about it. The truth is that prliament had the choice to create a binding referendum, but chose instead to make a non binding referendum. For the obvious reasons that Brexit cannot succeed unless it has wholehearted support of the nation. The conservatives will ultimately be crucified if they continue and leave the EU and then we spend the next 20 years trying to get back in. They stand to be anihilated as a political party.

That is what is going to happen if they persist. They need to understand that their party has been taken over by Leave/UKIP and used for that end by people who are perfectly happy for the conservative party to cease to exist. It is arguably moribund already.

 

[Drifterwood]

We really should talk about definition.

My interpretation is the 1% are the ultra wealthy.

This is where you are going wrong. Top 1% wealthy, .1% very wealthy, .01% filthy rich and t

he top .001% are the "Super Rich".​

The scale in the 1% in the UK starts at pre tax £150K which is why so many public sector workers including doctors fill the ranks of the 1%. They account for at least half.

Human nature is to consider anyone who earns twice as much as you as rich. But in reality if you earn the average £22,500 in the UK, someone earning £45K is not rich. Their entire income post tax is enough to rent a modest house in a reasonable part of London. In fact it wouldn't be able to afford the highest amount given away as housing benefit.

People's misunderstanding of relative wealth is of course manipulated by politicians. The reality is that if you are trying to raise a family and pay a mortgage in London and the south east, then a household income of four times the average earnings is not going to leave you rich.

 

[dandelion]

Funny how we are all citing house prices as what is crucifying ordinary people.

 

[Jason]

Funny how we are all citing house prices as what is crucifying ordinary people.

Because it is correct. For decades we talked of an average house price being three times average income. Now a UK-wide figure is more like 9x, and in many parts of London and SE 12x average salary will scarcely get you on the property ladder. Rents are locked to property values. In SE England a very, very modest home has a rent of perhaps £15,000pa, while in many parts of London it is double. People are hurting.

Part of the answer is house building, but it is important to note what a small contribution this can ever make. Our construction industry is pretty much at capacity already. We have structural problems that won't go away. London and SE don't have adequate water. There are no quick and easy solutions to this. London and SE has abysmal air quality, which in effect is linked to over-crowding. Yes there is a place for house building, but it is not a magic solution.

Part of the answer is stopping net migration into UK. The most ambitious house-building programme any politician can fantasise about (Corbyn when he is inventing stuff) is inadequate to keep pace with the new migrants. We need to stop and consider this. If we build faster than we've ever built, somehow get more capacity into our construction industry (migrants?) we are still going to be in a position where we have a bigger problem year-by-year.

Part of the answer is that we need to look at cities around the world with very high population densities and adjust planning. The UK has a lot of capacity in very small schemes to fit in more homes, and in redesignating use from retail/commercial to residential.

There are no good answers. We shouldn't be where we are. The mass migration to UK from EU has done a lot of damage as it happened without any consideration around space. We should always have had restrictions on the movement of people to live and work.

 

[Jason]

UK can't do opinion polls. There have been enough examples discussed on this board.

As well as polls we have local council ward elections. These are problematic sources of information. People vote on local issues, for people not parties, and there are often local parties and independents. Immediately following the General Election there were a string of by-elections bad for Conservatives and good for Labour. However there seems to be a change. Look at these two from last night:

Red Hall & Lingfield (Darlington) result:
LAB: 44.8% (-1.9)
CON: 41.4% (+12.4)
IND: 8.3% (+8.3)
GRN: 3.6% (-8.9)
LDEM: 2.0% (-9.9)
Labour hold.

St Margaret's (Waveney) result:
CON: 41.7% (+11.8)
LAB: 35.1% (-1.3)
UKIP: 10.2% (-15.8)
LDEM: 7.5% (+7.5)
GRN: 5.6% (-2.2)
Conservative GAIN from Labour.

It is looking as if there is a disconnect between the national opinion polls and how people are actually voting. Labour are increasing their vote in rock-solid Labour areas (where that increase is actually useless). LibDem are all over the place. UKIP vote is collapsing and splitting more or less equally Con and Lab. Green is collapsing.

The Conservatives need a success. They need something that allows people to complete the sentence "I am voting Con because..." The budget may provide this.

 

[Perados]

This is where you are going wrong. Top 1% wealthy, .1% very wealthy, .01% filthy rich and t

he top .001% are the "Super Rich".​

The scale in the 1% in the UK starts at pre tax £150K which is why so many public sector workers including doctors fill the ranks of the 1%. They account for at least half.

Human nature is to consider anyone who earns twice as much as you as rich. But in reality if you earn the average £22,500 in the UK, someone earning £45K is not rich. Their entire income post tax is enough to rent a modest house in a reasonable part of London. In fact it wouldn't be able to afford the highest amount given away as housing benefit.

sorry but here you mix MEDIAN and AVERAGE.

The median is 21 - 22 k in Britain. That meains 50% of the British polulation earns less than 22k.
The average is more like 30k and then some more.

If you now argue the top 1% starts at 100k, it's still 5 times as much as 50% of all Brits earn.



100k might not be super wealthy, but if you run a system where more and more people get poor and can't afford to pay any tax, you will have to draw a line where people will have to pay more tax.
You don't like it? Create a more fair economical system

People's misunderstanding of relative wealth is of course manipulated by politicians.

Yes it is, pilticians use every opportunity to tell the poor that they aren't as poor as they believe and the wealthy deserve some support, because they aren't as wealthy as the poor think. That's why we can increase VAT and reduce unemployment payments.

You can't expect that the wealthy are able to give more, but you can always expect that the poor get less.

The reality is that if you are trying to raise a family and pay a mortgage in London and the south east, then a household income of four times the average earnings is not going to leave you rich.

oh the poor doctor can't afford to live in London... well, then you will have to tell him what you told all the waiters, construction workers and grocery store employees the years before: You can't expect that evetyone can live in London.

That's the simple logic, at first you tell it the poor (because you are to lazy stingy) to care for them, then you will tell it the middle class out of the same reasons. Now you have to tell it the upper class and people start to worry...

Laughable

 

[Jason]

@Perados, I don't think the UK property issues are replicated anywhere else in Europe.

For example I know Paris property prices are very high. However a drive of two hours from Paris gets to places where prices are amazingly cheap. Very many Parisians put up with little Paris homes but escape every weekend to their cottage in the country.

A two hour drive from London gets to places that are still very expensive. Three hours and probably there are cheaper pockets. Some areas north of Cardiff are cheap, as are some suburbs of Birmingham. We also have property price high spots away from London. The example that shocks everyone is Sandbanks, Bournemouth, in the global top ten.

We have a problem. Labour failed to tackle it - indeed the problem grew under Labour. Now we have a leader of the opposition who is making silly soundbites about building houses, and a Prime Minister who is possibly saying something similar. The solution is far more complex than this.

In an area of the SE of England I see that the very cheapest property presently on the market is a studio flat, £199,999. This is a single bed-sit room with a kitchen alcove and a shower/WC. This is around 10x what the average person is earning.

Yes we need people to move out of London and SE. However the jobs are in London/SE.

 

[dandelion]

Funny how we are all citing house prices as what is crucifying ordinary people.

Because it is correct.

Yes but that isnt my point. My point is the government didnt care at all six months ago, before Corbyn made it one of his winning points in the recent electin.

For decades we talked of an average house price being three times average income. Now a UK-wide figure is more like 9x,

And that rise was government policy, created by the conservative party. Who stopped the construction of council houses and sold off the existing stock, so now they are rented out by private landlords at high rents instead of social ones. Which councils could afford to do because they had an asset which had cost far far less than current market prices. the conservatives gave away this national asset for their own electoral gain, and essentially forced labour to go along with it.

Part of the answer is house building,

All of the answer is housebuilding.

but it is important to note what a small contribution this can ever make. Our construction industry is pretty much at capacity already.

Gosh jason, you do talk some rot!. Why is it at capacity? Its an utterly circular argument. There are no builders because there have been no jobs to build houses for 30 years!

We have structural problems that won't go away. London and SE don't have adequate water.

We have plenty of water. We waste most of it. Water companies dont care about mending leaks because the water is virtually free to them.

There are no quick and easy solutions to this. London and SE has abysmal air quality, which in effect is linked to over-crowding.

I think I quoted Ken livingstone on this, where he said some of the more recent tube extensions had smaller capacity...because the national plan was to shrink London and redistribute the jobs and workforce elsewhere. But then we changed to policy of growing London instead of other cities, Ridiculous.

Part of the answer is stopping net migration into UK.

We cant do that. because net migration into the Uk is keeping UK industry afloat. thats government policy too.

The most ambitious house-building programme any politician can fantasise about (Corbyn when he is inventing stuff) is inadequate to keep pace with the new migrants.

Full fact seem to think Uk housebuilding peaked at about 350,000 a year, and is now around 150,000. https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

If we had kept the rate up instead of Thatcher cancelling housebuilding, we would now have some 3,000,000 more homes. House prices would be markedly lower, and we would not be having this discussion. So blame Thatcher.

The UK has a lot of capacity in very small schemes to fit in more homes, and in redesignating use from retail/commercial to residential.

No. It has a lot of capacity for new towns (indeed cities) and expansion in what is now countryside. the developed area is only about 5% of the country. The BBc the other day observed there is more peat bog In britain than developed land.

Leaving the EU will do nothing to solve any problem the UK has, but will make many worse. This is a classic example of how the Uk has destroyed its own economy by failing to get the basics right, like having enough housing.