|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 10, 2024 18:08:12 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. I agree, we need to elect a government who would introduce such a law |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 10, 2024 18:10:32 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. It is good that the LibDems have made their intentions clear, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 10, 2024 18:12:53 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. I wonder why this has happened? www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-election-results-far-right-afd-ecr-id-b2559766.html |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 10, 2024 18:38:58 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. I wonder why this has happened? www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-election-results-far-right-afd-ecr-id-b2559766.htmlPopulism. I don’t think it was a protest vote in favour of carcinogenic materials in toys! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 10, 2024 18:39:30 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. It is good that the LibDems have made their intentions clear, isn't it? Yes it is |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 10, 2024 18:41:00 GMT
We have murderers in this country despite our laws. That is not an argument against having a law against committing murder. I would prefer to have a law that says materials that cause cancer are prohibited from children’s toys than to just allow it to happen and then have to check every single children’s toy you purchase for what it is made from. I agree, we need to elect a government who would introduce such a law And ensure we never elect a government who bows to big business, lobby groups and pressure from larger and more powerful nations. Or rejoin the EU and we don’t have to worry so much about the safety of products sold here. |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jun 10, 2024 18:48:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 10, 2024 18:53:02 GMT
I agree, we need to elect a government who would introduce such a law And ensure we never elect a government who bows to big business, lobby groups and pressure from larger and more powerful nations. Or rejoin the EU and we don’t have to worry so much about the safety of products sold here. Is that because the EU has better members of the Commission than we could possibly have as Mps? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 10, 2024 19:10:13 GMT
And ensure we never elect a government who bows to big business, lobby groups and pressure from larger and more powerful nations. Or rejoin the EU and we don’t have to worry so much about the safety of products sold here. Is that because the EU has better members of the Commission than we could possibly have as Mps? No, it is double protection. Some things need it. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 10, 2024 19:25:12 GMT
Is that because the EU has better members of the Commission than we could possibly have as Mps? No, it is double protection. Some things need it. What if one party disagrees? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 10, 2024 19:28:19 GMT
No, it is double protection. Some things need it. What if one party disagrees? They can raise it. Most issues don’t have universal party support in any democracy. Although keeping carcinogens out of children’s toys would probably get lots of support. |
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jun 17, 2024 20:45:13 GMT
This one's for you Oggy, it made me laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 21, 2024 22:06:40 GMT
I can neither confirm nor deny that this is mrcoke........
|
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Jun 21, 2024 23:16:26 GMT
I voted for Brexit and have stated my reasons why before but let's be honest it's failed and offered the people in this country nothing different no new direction no vision nothing.
If we had another referendum I would 100% vote remain. I'm the kind of person that takes a step back and try's to look at things from an unbiased angle and unfortunately it hasn't worked and it won't work, it's not even talked about anymore. It's become a tool to separate us and there has been zero intention to make lives better by doing it, Brexit has been a car crash. I made a mistake, I won't apologise obviously because it's what I thought we needed but it's clear now it isn't. My vision for what it could be and what it's turned out to be are miles apart
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 22, 2024 0:32:24 GMT
I voted for Brexit and have stated my reasons why before but let's be honest it's failed and offered the people in this country nothing different no new direction no vision nothing. If we had another referendum I would 100% vote remain. I'm the kind of person that takes a step back and try's to look at things from an unbiased angle and unfortunately it hasn't worked and it won't work, it's not even talked about anymore. It's become a tool to separate us and there has been zero intention to make lives better by doing it, Brexit has been a car crash. I made a mistake, I won't apologise obviously because it's what I thought we needed but it's clear now it isn't. My vision for what it could be and what it's turned out to be are miles apart Brexit was a Political and Idealogical Concept that couldn't be defined in a Binary Referendum because the end result was unknown until the terms of exit were determined This gave free reign to both sides of the argument to propose a spectrum of outcomes from nothing would change only positives to armageddon Although I detest Brexit it would have left a Democratic deficit if it hadn't been followed through once Cameron said although Referenda has no basis under UK Law that he would respect the result. The first mistake was to appoint a series of buffoons to negotiate the Exit terms who based upon their public statements at least had no actual knowledge of International Trading Terms. Tactically the UK negotiators fundamentally miscalculated that Northern Ireland was the weak spot for EU to preserve the purity of the Single Market, Politically sensitive to a Member and it was a circle that couldn't be squared. It was arrogance that believed this impediment would be overridden by German Car Exports. After wasting 3 years of internal and external wrangling the Country was ready to be put out of its misery and accepted Johnson’s Oven Ready hardest of Brexit Turkey's gratefully because it couldn't be that bad, it was. Of course there are many who are satisfied with the outcome from a idealogical standpoint and their viewpoint is valid and should be respected, but from an Economic viewpoint it can't be defended. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Jun 22, 2024 8:10:55 GMT
I voted for Brexit and have stated my reasons why before but let's be honest it's failed and offered the people in this country nothing different no new direction no vision nothing. If we had another referendum I would 100% vote remain. I'm the kind of person that takes a step back and try's to look at things from an unbiased angle and unfortunately it hasn't worked and it won't work, it's not even talked about anymore. It's become a tool to separate us and there has been zero intention to make lives better by doing it, Brexit has been a car crash. I made a mistake, I won't apologise obviously because it's what I thought we needed but it's clear now it isn't. My vision for what it could be and what it's turned out to be are miles apart Brexit was a Political and Idealogical Concept that couldn't be defined in a Binary Referendum because the end result was unknown until the terms of exit were determined This gave free reign to both sides of the argument to propose a spectrum of outcomes from nothing would change only positives to armageddon Although I detest Brexit it would have left a Democratic deficit if it hadn't been followed through once Cameron said although Referenda has no basis under UK Law that he would respect the result. The first mistake was to appoint a series of buffoons to negotiate the Exit terms who based upon their public statements at least had no actual knowledge of International Trading Terms. Tactically the UK negotiators fundamentally miscalculated that Northern Ireland was the weak spot for EU to preserve the purity of the Single Market, Politically sensitive to a Member and it was a circle that couldn't be squared. It was arrogance that believed this impediment would be overridden by German Car Exports. After wasting 3 years of internal and external wrangling the Country was ready to be put out of its misery and accepted Johnson’s Oven Ready hardest of Brexit Turkey's gratefully because it couldn't be that bad, it was. Of course there are many who are satisfied with the outcome from a idealogical standpoint and their viewpoint is valid and should be respected, but from an Economic viewpoint it can't be defended. In my view the Tories should have been able to stay in power for at least another 10 years or more banging on about their Brexit benefits and what they can do to make it benefit the people. The fact they aren't even talking about it anymore speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 22, 2024 21:37:42 GMT
Brexit was a Political and Idealogical Concept that couldn't be defined in a Binary Referendum because the end result was unknown until the terms of exit were determined This gave free reign to both sides of the argument to propose a spectrum of outcomes from nothing would change only positives to armageddon Although I detest Brexit it would have left a Democratic deficit if it hadn't been followed through once Cameron said although Referenda has no basis under UK Law that he would respect the result. The first mistake was to appoint a series of buffoons to negotiate the Exit terms who based upon their public statements at least had no actual knowledge of International Trading Terms. Tactically the UK negotiators fundamentally miscalculated that Northern Ireland was the weak spot for EU to preserve the purity of the Single Market, Politically sensitive to a Member and it was a circle that couldn't be squared. It was arrogance that believed this impediment would be overridden by German Car Exports. After wasting 3 years of internal and external wrangling the Country was ready to be put out of its misery and accepted Johnson’s Oven Ready hardest of Brexit Turkey's gratefully because it couldn't be that bad, it was. Of course there are many who are satisfied with the outcome from a idealogical standpoint and their viewpoint is valid and should be respected, but from an Economic viewpoint it can't be defended. In my view the Tories should have been able to stay in power for at least another 10 years or more banging on about their Brexit benefits and what they can do to make it benefit the people. The fact they aren't even talking about it anymore speaks volumes. No-one is talking about it because the rest of Europe is as dysfunctional, if not more so than the UK. The UK is in a mess because of a piss poor government, nothing to do with Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 22, 2024 21:39:14 GMT
In my view the Tories should have been able to stay in power for at least another 10 years or more banging on about their Brexit benefits and what they can do to make it benefit the people. The fact they aren't even talking about it anymore speaks volumes. No-one is talking about it because the rest of Europe is as dysfunctional, if not more so than the UK. The UK is in a mess because of a piss poor government, nothing to do with Brexit. In Egypt are you? |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 22, 2024 21:48:19 GMT
No-one is talking about it because the rest of Europe is as dysfunctional, if not more so than the UK. The UK is in a mess because of a piss poor government, nothing to do with Brexit. In Egypt are you? The UK is about to vote in a socialist government by a landslide, the rest of Europe are lurching to right wing parties. Confusing isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Jun 22, 2024 22:52:01 GMT
In my view the Tories should have been able to stay in power for at least another 10 years or more banging on about their Brexit benefits and what they can do to make it benefit the people. The fact they aren't even talking about it anymore speaks volumes. No-one is talking about it because the rest of Europe is as dysfunctional, if not more so than the UK. The UK is in a mess because of a piss poor government, nothing to do with Brexit. It doesn't matter what is happening in the EU, what's our vision now we have Brexit. We are in control of what we do without EU interference what opportunities can we create? We got out and there is nothing for us to be pleased about, no new future nothing. Just because the EU is having problems shouldn't mean we let the Tories off the hook, they offered us a better future and Brexit would deliver that so where is it? It doesn't exist, they have no plan on doing anything with it because it's failing and they know it's failing that's why they want out so that they can blame someone else for it |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 23, 2024 10:29:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 23, 2024 15:50:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 23, 2024 17:10:46 GMT
Absolutely, but the existence of the directive is good. Having laws and regulations to ensure products are safe is a good thing. Otherwise non-compliance is irrelevant. The fact the EU is enforcing its laws is a good thing. I am not sure what your point is. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 26, 2024 15:25:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 26, 2024 15:41:30 GMT
Absolutely, but the existence of the directive is good. Having laws and regulations to ensure products are safe is a good thing. Otherwise non-compliance is irrelevant. The fact the EU is enforcing its laws is a good thing. I am not sure what your point is. You're having a laugh. The EU is rotten to the core with corruption endemic from Brussels to furthest East regions. verfassungsblog.de/the-post-truth-about-corruption-in-the-european-union/Fortunately we are an independent country who can throw out those politicians we don't want and change our government and any law. Our civil service work for the government instead of the Commission controlling everything in the EU. Plus we are no longer paying a huge contribution towards the cost of corruption in the EU. I think many European citizens are sick of the thing but unfortunately for them they are locked in to the system through the fiscal controls that have been introduced since the UK left. We got out just in time. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 26, 2024 16:03:15 GMT
It''s called being polite to your guest, Labour doesn't seem terribly interested in a Full Fat Trade Deal with India, concentrating on Regulatory Alignment with EU to make Exports to UKs largest Trading Partner easier Personally I wouldn't have anything to do with the Racist Modi, in any case his ability to influence things have been clipped as he'd now leads a minority Government. Labour’s trade policies can be found all the way down on page 121 of the manifesto. Labour does state that while the party would still pursue deals with India, that ‘rather than prioritising insubstantial agreements which do not bring meaningful benefits to the UK’ the focus will be on targeting areas of economic strength.
Labour would look at standalone sector deals ‘such as digital, or mutual recognition agreements, to promote our services exports.’ And it has promised a trade strategy as an undisclosed date. That trade strategy will likely want to focus on regulatory alignment with the EU to quietly strengthen and smooth ties with the UK’s largest trading partner. However, the pursuit of economic growth features prominently and there does seem to be a recognition that trade will inevitably play a prominent role. Yet, the overall message is one of a lack of interest in speaking at length about trade, and that is in large part due to the difficulty of speaking about trade without speaking about Brexit.
ukandeu.ac.uk/what-are-the-main-parties-saying-about-trade/ |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 26, 2024 16:06:22 GMT
Absolutely, but the existence of the directive is good. Having laws and regulations to ensure products are safe is a good thing. Otherwise non-compliance is irrelevant. The fact the EU is enforcing its laws is a good thing. I am not sure what your point is. You're having a laugh. The EU is rotten to the core with corruption endemic from Brussels to furthest East regions. verfassungsblog.de/the-post-truth-about-corruption-in-the-european-union/Fortunately we are an independent country who can throw out those politicians we don't want and change our government and any law. Our civil service work for the government instead of the Commission controlling everything in the EU. Plus we are no longer paying a huge contribution towards the cost of corruption in the EU. I think many European citizens are sick of the thing but unfortunately for them they are locked in to the system through the fiscal controls that have been introduced since the UK left. We got out just in time. You wouldn’t know about law breakers if there was no law to break! In China or the USA, nobody would know about unsafe products. It is only within the EU that people know because of their laws. Like I said, would you prefer all crimes were decriminalised because then there would be no crime!? Laws are there to protect people. The EU does it better than almost everywhere else because their laws are pro consumer/worker and against governments and businesses. Why are you against that? |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 26, 2024 16:36:56 GMT
Absolutely, but the existence of the directive is good. Having laws and regulations to ensure products are safe is a good thing. Otherwise non-compliance is irrelevant. The fact the EU is enforcing its laws is a good thing. I am not sure what your point is. You're having a laugh. The EU is rotten to the core with corruption endemic from Brussels to furthest East regions. verfassungsblog.de/the-post-truth-about-corruption-in-the-european-union/Fortunately we are an independent country who can throw out those politicians we don't want and change our government and any law. Our civil service work for the government instead of the Commission controlling everything in the EU. Plus we are no longer paying a huge contribution towards the cost of corruption in the EU. I think many European citizens are sick of the thing but unfortunately for them they are locked in to the system through the fiscal controls that have been introduced since the UK left. We got out just in time. On the contrary it's you that's having a laugh, there are no new Fiscal Rules The Fiscal Rules were established under Maastricht and were codified in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) They were suspended due to COVID 2020-2023 Now they have been reintroduced with a new Framework to assess Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSA). I could see your concern if UK was still in EU not a problem with meeting the 3% Budget Deficit more the 60% Debt to GDP Ration with UK straining under a Mountain of Debt made worse by Mad Lizzy (no not the crap Trade Deals) by crashing the Economy and driving Gilts above 5%. But these are targets to be aimed at and there are allowances and time to achieve for poorly performing Economies like UK. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 27, 2024 8:09:29 GMT
You're having a laugh. The EU is rotten to the core with corruption endemic from Brussels to furthest East regions. verfassungsblog.de/the-post-truth-about-corruption-in-the-european-union/Fortunately we are an independent country who can throw out those politicians we don't want and change our government and any law. Our civil service work for the government instead of the Commission controlling everything in the EU. Plus we are no longer paying a huge contribution towards the cost of corruption in the EU. I think many European citizens are sick of the thing but unfortunately for them they are locked in to the system through the fiscal controls that have been introduced since the UK left. We got out just in time. On the contrary it's you that's having a laugh, there are no new Fiscal Rules The Fiscal Rules were established under Maastricht and were codified in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) They were suspended due to COVID 2020-2023 Now they have been reintroduced with a new Framework to assess Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSA). I could see your concern if UK was still in EU not a problem with meeting the 3% Budget Deficit more the 60% Debt to GDP Ration with UK straining under a Mountain of Debt made worse by Mad Lizzy (no not the crap Trade Deals) by crashing the Economy and driving Gilts above 5%. But these are targets to be aimed at and there are allowances and time to achieve for poorly performing Economies like UK. You say "there are no new Fiscal Rules" but Bruegel recently published an article entitled "The implications of the European Union’s new fiscal rules" stating " This policy brief summarises the main features of the new European Union fiscal framework"
www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/implications-european-unions-new-fiscal-rules#:~:text=EU%20countries%20are%20required%20to,at%20a%20satisfactory%20pace%E2%80%9D%20(Article In April the ETUC published an article " New fiscal rules unfit for future and leave workers and citizens behind" so the trade unions have got it wrong? www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/new-fiscal-rules-unfit-future-and-leave-workers-and-citizens-behindEURACTIV published an article in April and updated in May in which they state " Concerns about the new rules are shared by left-leaning think tanks and trade unions" that they will lead to "a new wave of austerity and prevent green investments".
www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/european-parliament-adopts-fiscal-rules-reform-amid-warnings-of-austerity-risk/The issue of climate change has also been raised by New Economics Foundation stating "NEW EU FISCAL RULES JEOPARDISE INVESTMENT NEEDED TO COMBAT CLIMATE CRISIS
Limits will hit poor countries the hardest".
neweconomics.org/2023/08/new-eu-fiscal-rules-jeopardise-investment-needed-to-combat-climate-changeThere's more: www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eus-new-fiscal-rules-impede-fight-against-climate-change-report/But we stand corrected, they are not new rules but "a new Framework". Now who is having a laugh? Actually it isn't EU national debt rules that I was necessarily referring to but the EU pandemic recovery fund, which has two features that I am glad the UK is not involved in. The EU Commission will actually control individual countries recovery funds on an annual basis in terms of approving each country's proposals and the issue of funds to the country. But more seriously the EU Commission will be borrowing money on behalf of the community, which they were never allowed to do during the UK's membership of the EU. The EU Commission will be introducing new taxes (sorry, " new sources of revenue") to repay the debt. But even more seriously the EU Commission now have their "foot in the door" and this is just another step in the process of ever closer union, first economic, now fiscal, in the future foreign policy, defence, etc. The EU's recovery fund has been explicitly construed as a one-off fiscal instrument, but what happens when the next international crisis occurs? I'm reminded that in his budget of December 1798, Pitt introduced income tax to aid "the prosecution of the war" as "a temporary measure" ! Finally you are critical of UK financial debt. The fact is the UK economy has been in relative decline for decades due to lack of investment, huge negative balance of payments since Maastricht, overloading of public services since the influx of workers from the EU taking jobs UK citizens could do, and an economic mess since the 2008 financial crisis under the last Labour government. We now have the chance to rebuild our country free from EU constraints be they fiscal, trade, immigration, farming, or otherwise. On the question of trade, I hope the Labour government don't waste too much time on the EU, which is obsessed with protectionism, and they take note of people like Makoto Uchida, the chief executive of Nissan, who says the impact of Brexit on its UK operations is now negligible, and has urged the country to be more optimistic about its prospects. www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NISSAN-MOTOR-CO-LTD-6492477/news/Seven-years-on-we-need-to-finally-stop-blaming-Brexit-just-look-at-the-numbers-45508701/ |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 27, 2024 8:30:06 GMT
On the contrary it's you that's having a laugh, there are no new Fiscal Rules The Fiscal Rules were established under Maastricht and were codified in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) They were suspended due to COVID 2020-2023 Now they have been reintroduced with a new Framework to assess Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSA). I could see your concern if UK was still in EU not a problem with meeting the 3% Budget Deficit more the 60% Debt to GDP Ration with UK straining under a Mountain of Debt made worse by Mad Lizzy (no not the crap Trade Deals) by crashing the Economy and driving Gilts above 5%. But these are targets to be aimed at and there are allowances and time to achieve for poorly performing Economies like UK. You say "there are no new Fiscal Rules" but Bruegel recently published an article entitled "The implications of the European Union’s new fiscal rules" stating " This policy brief summarises the main features of the new European Union fiscal framework"
www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/implications-european-unions-new-fiscal-rules#:~:text=EU%20countries%20are%20required%20to,at%20a%20satisfactory%20pace%E2%80%9D%20(Article In April the ETUC published an article " New fiscal rules unfit for future and leave workers and citizens behind" so the trade unions have got it wrong? www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/new-fiscal-rules-unfit-future-and-leave-workers-and-citizens-behindEURACTIV published an article in April and updated in May in which they state " Concerns about the new rules are shared by left-leaning think tanks and trade unions" that they will lead to "a new wave of austerity and prevent green investments".
www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/european-parliament-adopts-fiscal-rules-reform-amid-warnings-of-austerity-risk/The issue of climate change has also been raised by New Economics Foundation stating "NEW EU FISCAL RULES JEOPARDISE INVESTMENT NEEDED TO COMBAT CLIMATE CRISIS
Limits will hit poor countries the hardest".
neweconomics.org/2023/08/new-eu-fiscal-rules-jeopardise-investment-needed-to-combat-climate-changeThere's more: www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eus-new-fiscal-rules-impede-fight-against-climate-change-report/But we stand corrected, they are not new rules but "a new Framework". Now who is having a laugh? Actually it isn't EU national debt rules that I was necessarily referring to but the EU pandemic recovery fund, which has two features that I am glad the UK is not involved in. The EU Commission will actually control individual countries recovery funds on an annual basis in terms of approving each country's proposals and the issue of funds to the country. But more seriously the EU Commission will be borrowing money on behalf of the community, which they were never allowed to do during the UK's membership of the EU. The EU Commission will be introducing new taxes (sorry, " new sources of revenue") to repay the debt. But even more seriously the EU Commission now have their "foot in the door" and this is just another step in the process of ever closer union, first economic, now fiscal, in the future foreign policy, defence, etc. The EU's recovery fund has been explicitly construed as a one-off fiscal instrument, but what happens when the next international crisis occurs? I'm reminded that in his budget of December 1798, Pitt introduced income tax to aid "the prosecution of the war" as "a temporary measure" ! Finally you are critical of UK financial debt. The fact is the UK economy has been in relative decline for decades due to lack of investment, huge negative balance of payments since Maastricht, overloading of public services since the influx of workers from the EU taking jobs UK citizens could do, and an economic mess since the 2008 financial crisis under the last Labour government. We now have the chance to rebuild our country free from EU constraints be they fiscal, trade, immigration, farming, or otherwise. On the question of trade, I hope the Labour government don't waste too much time on the EU, which is obsessed with protectionism, and they take note of people like Makoto Uchida, the chief executive of Nissan, who says the impact of Brexit on its UK operations is now negligible, and has urged the country to be more optimistic about its prospects. www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NISSAN-MOTOR-CO-LTD-6492477/news/Seven-years-on-we-need-to-finally-stop-blaming-Brexit-just-look-at-the-numbers-45508701/The very first paragraph in the very first link tells you, shock horror, the headline is misleading THERE ARE NO NEW FISCAL RULES. That first paragraph is EXACTLY as I said, I'm surprised you were taken in, or were you. I had no need to read any further Executive summary European Union countries are required by the EU Treaty to keep their budget deficits within 3 percent of GDP, and their public debt within 60 percent of GDP. A new framework to enforce these rules is based on country-specific debt sustainability analyses (DSA) and uses a single indicator, a measure of public expenditure, as the annual fiscal policy target. These changes are welcome. To assess the sustainability of public finances, it is much better to focus on the likely evolution of the debt path than to rely on simple numerical rules. Public expenditures net of changes to tax policy are a far better target for fiscal policy than the deficit, since they are under the control of the government and cannot give rise to pro-cyclical fiscal policy (excess spending in good times, fiscal cuts in bad times). These features could increase the framework’s efficiency and improve compliance. |
|
