Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The BES data that appears to show the impact of the CON manife

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The BES data that appears to show the impact of the CON manifesto/dementia tax and TMay skipping the debate

“Towards the end of the questionnaire, we asked our respondents a new question that we asked for the first time in wave 12: ‘has anything happened in the last few days that has changed your view of any of the main political parties?’ Most respondents had clearly made up their minds about the parties well in advance of the election, with only 13% answering ‘yes’ over the whole of the campaign, though as the graph below shows, this proportion increased markedly over the course of the campaign, starting out at about 7% in the first week before increasing to an average of about 15% for the final weeks of the campaign.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 610
    First possibly
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Second provisionally.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    Having been driven from my intended cricket-watching by the rain, third!
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    FPT:
    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 678
    The most interesting review of the campaign and election I've seen.

    There's not a single thing I can see (OK having viewed the soundcloud animating in slo-mo a few times there's a small "green" in there somewhere) relating to other parties. Just shows how dominant the Tory and Labour messages were, and how the smaller parties struggled to get a hearing.
  • Soon we must discuss the possibility of Mrs May being a Labour sleeper agent.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited August 2
    To think these idiots could be in charge within 6 months*....

    https://order-order.com/2017/08/02/shadow-transport-spokesman-car-crash-interview/

    *according to Jez
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    If they don't want to pay €580m or so, why not stay?

    If they do want to move, on what basis is that a matter for us to pay?

    It might be that this is a promise to be discarded, to show compromise. However, as Cameron (and Goldsmith) discovered, sometimes you're forced to make good on a promise that ought not have been made, and that can have rather poor consequences.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 546


    If they do want to move, on what basis is that a matter for us to pay?

    Just old-fashioned extortion. If the EU wants to move an agency, that's up to them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Andrew, ironic, I just tweeted about King John discovering that extortion doesn't make you many friends :)

    On a happier note, a little Kubica video. I think we may well see him in F1 again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40803460
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Yep, things like this should be met with the famous Arkell v Pressdram response.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    From an entirely unrelated web search, but I wonder if May's attack on self-styled citizens of the world was inspired by her religious background.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4:4

    You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    The British government didn't sign the lease, so on what basis should they be expected to pay this sum?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    The cost is probably bogus anyway and assumes the building will be boarded up rather than re-let.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Yep, things like this should be met with the famous Arkell v Pressdram response.
    The difference is that Mr Arkell was bluffing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Just think how delighted we (the scientists involved) were when London was chosen!

    We, the British, have told them to leave,. AIUI the EMA doesn’t want to leave, but, as an EU agency it has to be in an EU country.
    We told them to go, so we have to pick up the tab.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited August 2

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Yep, things like this should be met with the famous Arkell v Pressdram response.
    The difference is that Mr Arkell was bluffing.
    Indeed he was, as are the EU with trying to inflict costs arising from their own decisions onto the UK.

    One might say that the EU's behaviour is more like the behaviour of the wife in McCartney v McCartney, who had the most amazing sense of self-entitlement to her husband's very substantial wealth that the judge had ever seen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    There's a rather obvious answer (just grandfather in having the EMA in a non-EU country until the lease is up). But it does mean using common sense rather than the EU's gimpish bureaucratic approach.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Just think how delighted we (the scientists involved) were when London was chosen!

    We, the British, have told them to leave
    No, we haven't.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    There's a rather obvious answer (just grandfather in having the EMA in a non-EU country until the lease is up). But it does mean using common sense rather than the EU's gimpish bureaucratic approach.

    The Boris Johnson approach; having cake and eating it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    King Cole, how so? If they want to stay and we're happy for them to stay, what's the problem?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Glenn, the EU's judicial imperialism is indefensible lunacy. Do we demand English or Scottish law to apply to Britons living overseas?

    The idea that the law applying equally to all the people in a country is a problem is a deranged and perverse perspective.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    Mr. Glenn, the EU's judicial imperialism is indefensible lunacy. Do we demand English or Scottish law to apply to Britons living overseas?

    The idea that the law applying equally to all the people in a country is a problem is a deranged and perverse perspective.

    The EU hasn't demanded what I proposed - they are happy to go ahead with a move - but it would seem to be a reasonable precondition for keeping their agencies here if that's our wish. If we're not willing to unilaterally offer something along those lines, in what sense are we serious about facilitating the retention of their London location post-Brexit?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    King Cole, how so? If they want to stay and we're happy for them to stay, what's the problem?

    The ‘they’ is the staff, not the organisation as a whole. Would we be happy if one of our major regulatory boduies ‘lived’ in a different country?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Glenn, Blair was willing to unilaterally offer half the rebate. How far did that get him?

    If the EU has a sensible proposal, we should consider it (or offer our own). If they expect us to pay them half a billion quid because they're hamstrung by their own stupid bureaucracy we should invite them to go forth and multiply.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    tlg86 said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
    I was about to write something along similar lines, but we'd need to think through things like income taxes and whether the EU, as an entity, is allowed to have diplomatic premises.

    A genuinely good piece of outside the box thinking from @williamglenn though, and the sort of thing we should be happy to go along with as part of the deal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Mr. Glenn, the EU's judicial imperialism is indefensible lunacy. Do we demand English or Scottish law to apply to Britons living overseas?

    The idea that the law applying equally to all the people in a country is a problem is a deranged and perverse perspective.

    You are entitled to hold that view, Mr.D, but it's surely impossible for a European regulatory agency to be domiciled in a jurisdiction which excludes European law ?

    Which is what the comment about having and eating cake was getting at.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 2,915

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Seems reasonable in principle. Didn't the Dutch temporarily cede a courtroom in the Netherlands to the UK so it could be part of Scotland to hold the Lockerbie trial in? Or we could give them a 99 year lease or whatever.

    All if it helps grease the wheels of an overall sensible deal, and once outside the office they abide buy our law. If they want squillions because they fouled up the lease or never considered article 50 well that should be their problem per se, but again it's all in the pile to be negotiated.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
    I was about to write something along similar lines, but we'd need to think through things like income taxes and whether the EU, as an entity, is allowed to have diplomatic premises.
    To the extent that it would set a precedent for the EU to have its own diplomatic premises abroad there would be something in it for Brussels too. I think it's too late now though as the bidding to decide the new host has already begun.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    I suspect the ema see their job as copying nice recommendations in a fair round hand.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    Just think how delighted we (the scientists involved) were when London was chosen!

    We, the British, have told them to leave,. AIUI the EMA doesn’t want to leave, but, as an EU agency it has to be in an EU country.
    We told them to go, so we have to pick up the tab.
    I don't think we have told them to go.

    There's nothing to prevent them from finding an assignee for the lease, in any case.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 2,915
    edited August 2
    PAW said:

    I suspect the ema see their job as copying nice recommendations in a fair round hand.

    The truth is the lease agreement was probably written by a doctor, and until they find a chemist to read it, nobody has a clue really what it says. ( Sorry doctors - I know, I know!)
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 2,915

    King Cole, how so? If they want to stay and we're happy for them to stay, what's the problem?

    The ‘they’ is the staff, not the organisation as a whole. Would we be happy if one of our major regulatory boduies ‘lived’ in a different country?
    The Swiss hosted UN agencies I think while not being a member. The supreme court of various territories dotted around the world remains the Privy Council. They can do anything if they are pragmatic.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited August 2

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
    I was about to write something along similar lines, but we'd need to think through things like income taxes and whether the EU, as an entity, is allowed to have diplomatic premises.
    To the extent that it would set a precedent for the EU to have its own diplomatic premises abroad there would be something in it for Brussels too. I think it's too late now though as the bidding to decide the new host has already begun.
    In rather the same way as the idea that the EU might offer citizenship to people, in its own right rather than via a member state, was a nakedly obvious power grab which should worry other member states.

    But I'm quite pragmatic about the deal, I think that for all the bluster coming from those involved and the media, something acceptable to the majority will be worked out in the end. It's in no-one's best interest for no deal to get done. In the best traditions of EU negotiations, it will probably get agreed at 3am after a 96 hour meeting sometime in March 2019.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    the trouble is, the ema don't carry out any treatments themselves, and perhaps only the nhs can provide the volume of data (especially in the age of dna testing to inform treatment options).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022
    welshowl said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Seems reasonable in principle. Didn't the Dutch temporarily cede a courtroom in the Netherlands to the UK so it could be part of Scotland to hold the Lockerbie trial in? Or we could give them a 99 year lease or whatever.

    All if it helps grease the wheels of an overall sensible deal, and once outside the office they abide buy our law. If they want squillions because they fouled up the lease or never considered article 50 well that should be their problem per se, but again it's all in the pile to be negotiated.
    Which would be fine if this were a single instance.
    It isn't - it's one of hundreds, and the time required to sort out this stuff is limited.
    Our government doesn't seem to have thought out (or even given any thought to) any overarching principles which might facilitate such agreements ahead of the negotiations, so the likelihood of getting sensible deals on more than a proportion of such issues is slim.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    and the europeans will ok everything - look at the way the french oked last year for human testing a drug known to cause brain damage and deaths in animals - for a headache pill!.

    was their any collusion between the french officials and the drug company? the trial result - brain damage and deaths of the human guinea pigs
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 57,213
    edited August 2
    I never knew there were so many medical experts and experts in novation on PB.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    I never knew there were so many medical experts and experts in novation

    Needs must.
    :smile:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    I never knew there were so many medical experts and experts in novation

    Assigning a lease of an office is not particularly complex legal work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Mr. Andrew, ironic, I just tweeted about King John discovering that extortion doesn't make you many friends :)

    On a happier note, a little Kubica video. I think we may well see him in F1 again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40803460

    Had you noticed the moniker of McLaren's test driver, Mr.D ?

    Lando Norris - possibly the son of Star Wars fans ?
    (Seems a pretty decent pilot.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    edited August 2
    Mr. B, I hadn't noticed that.

    I have noticed the French chap, it is he, Leclerc! :p

    Edited extra bit: don't normally mention my own tweets, but this is slightly relevant to that jest:
  • Sean_F said:

    I never knew there were so many medical experts and experts in novation

    Assigning a lease of an office is not particularly complex legal work.
    But one with a reported £520 million break clause might be a bit more complex.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
    I was about to write something along similar lines, but we'd need to think through things like income taxes and whether the EU, as an entity, is allowed to have diplomatic premises.
    To the extent that it would set a precedent for the EU to have its own diplomatic premises abroad there would be something in it for Brussels too. I think it's too late now though as the bidding to decide the new host has already begun.
    There are already EU Embassies, so therefore the precedent has surely been set?
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    I think the £520 million also contains a charge for leasing an office in the EU? The suggestion is that we should pay for two leases?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    Sean_F said:

    I never knew there were so many medical experts and experts in novation

    Assigning a lease of an office is not particularly complex legal work.
    But one with a reported £520 million break clause might be a bit more complex.
    If they really have negotiated a lease which requires them to pay £526m, upon exercising a break clause, then the fault surely lies with the negotiator.

    But, surely, the answer is to find an assignee for the lease, rather than pay such an extortionate sum to exercise a break.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    It looks as though the EU has set a trend for compensation claims - "A POLISH official has revealed the country is looking into demanding reparations from Germany for the massive losses inflicted on Poland during World War II"
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 8,814
    Perfect for most politicians and television presenters
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    welshowl said:

    PAW said:

    I suspect the ema see their job as copying nice recommendations in a fair round hand.

    The truth is the lease agreement was probably written by a doctor, and until they find a chemist to read it, nobody has a clue really what it says. ( Sorry doctors - I know, I know!)
    I’ll give it a go ............. for a reasonable fee.
    In my day, prescription reading carried a small, but essential, number of marks in one of our final exams.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    PAW said:

    It looks as though the EU has set a trend for compensation claims - "A POLISH official has revealed the country is looking into demanding reparations from Germany for the massive losses inflicted on Poland during World War II"

    And they probably should. For them, the war didn't end in 1945 - they were left as a result of German aggression, in the hands of the Soviet Empire for a further 44 years. It's going to be legally very interesting to watch.

    Will they be struck out, because of the allied agreements with Germany (made to avoid the mistakes of the 1920s), or will they be seen not to have been in a position to agree to the terms of the end of the war and therefore still able to mount their own claim for reparations? Legally intriguing.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    welshowl said:

    PAW said:

    I suspect the ema see their job as copying nice recommendations in a fair round hand.

    The truth is the lease agreement was probably written by a doctor, and until they find a chemist to read it, nobody has a clue really what it says. ( Sorry doctors - I know, I know!)
    I’ll give it a go ............. for a reasonable fee.
    In my day, prescription reading carried a small, but essential, number of marks in one of our final exams.
    So you were a cryptographer for SIS?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Gotta love Susie! She's really quite funny on the late-night comedy Countdown, her and Rachel get to show off their human side much more than on the serious regular show.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    edited August 2

    Mr. B, I hadn't noticed that.

    I have noticed the French chap, it is he, Leclerc! :p

    Edited extra bit: don't normally mention my own tweets, but this is slightly relevant to that jest:

    Good moaning!

    I brung you a massage: Morris Duncer seems have to groat sense of heemour.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    edited August 2
    While not ‘knocking’ the Polish claim, this compensation thing can go far to far.
    See a piece in yesterday’s Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jul/31/why-brits-got-the-bug-for-holiday-sickness-scams?CMP=fb_gu
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    GE2017.

    Please. Make it stop.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    Looks as though to break the lease is estimated at 448 million euros - or 1700 average cost MRI machines. The UK goverment didn't sign the lease? Don't we have better things to do with our money?

    In a few years the value of trade with the EU will drop away. If we dont want chlorinated chicken from America then I guess we will no longer accept salmonella in eggs from the EU - https://www.egginfo.co.uk/news/new-eu-salmonella-report-good-news-uk-eggs. Will we still want food from Denmark and Holland, who don't meet current EU farming standards let alone matching ours?

    I don't think it is worth paying these enormous demands in the hope of influencing the EU. If we do, will other countries start presenting bills for free trade?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    TonyE said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    King Cole, if they don't want to leave and we're happy for them to stay, the problem's the EU.

    We're happy for them to stay? Given that the EMA is an EU regulatory body, would it be reasonable for territory of the office in Canary Wharf to be under ECJ jurisdiction and would you be happy for the government to make this offer?
    Actually, yes. If it took on the appearance of an embassy, I couldn't care what went on in there. Once out of the office, however, they'd have to live by the law of our land.
    I was about to write something along similar lines, but we'd need to think through things like income taxes and whether the EU, as an entity, is allowed to have diplomatic premises.
    To the extent that it would set a precedent for the EU to have its own diplomatic premises abroad there would be something in it for Brussels too. I think it's too late now though as the bidding to decide the new host has already begun.
    There are already EU Embassies, so therefore the precedent has surely been set?
    True, perhaps it's less of a carrot than I thought.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Mr. B, I hadn't noticed that.

    I have noticed the French chap, it is he, Leclerc! :p

    Edited extra bit: don't normally mention my own tweets, but this is slightly relevant to that jest:

    17 year old. Managed a lap time faster than either McLaren driver last weekend.

    I wonder what his odds are for a future world championship ?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    PAW said:

    Looks as though to break the lease is estimated at 448 million euros - or 1700 average cost MRI machines. The UK goverment didn't sign the lease? Don't we have better things to do with our money?

    In a few years the value of trade with the EU will drop away. If we dont want chlorinated chicken from America then I guess we will no longer accept salmonella in eggs from the EU - https://www.egginfo.co.uk/news/new-eu-salmonella-report-good-news-uk-eggs. Will we still want food from Denmark and Holland, who don't meet current EU farming standards let alone matching ours?

    I don't think it is worth paying these enormous demands in the hope of influencing the EU. If we do, will other countries start presenting bills for free trade?

    If trade with the EU drops away, from where will we get quality cars. And, more importantly, wine!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. B, I'd be slightly wary. That does sound impressive, but a title depends on the car more than anything else. Large double or triple figure odds might appeal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Mr. B, I'd be slightly wary. That does sound impressive, but a title depends on the car more than anything else. Large double or triple figure odds might appeal.

    Triple figures, yes.
    If he does turn out to be *really* good, he'll get the car, eventually.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. B, maybe but things don't always work out. Perez, Grosjean and Hulkenberg could all be worthy of a top drive. Alonso clearly is but the way things have gone he's only had a title-capable car three times since 2007 (inclusive) and one year (2012) that was more to do with him driving a perfect season (but for Grosjean's idiotic manoeuvre on the first lap of Belgium, Alonso would've won that title).
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 954

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095

    GE2017.

    Please. Make it stop.

    Indeed. Call another election.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    OldKingCole - Interesting comparison here between Tesla model 3 and the 3 series BMW. Not sure what the German manufacturers are up for it.
  • dyingswandyingswan Posts: 131
    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    Indeed; we are going to be shouting from our island, but who is going to listen?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Mr. B, maybe but things don't always work out. Perez, Grosjean and Hulkenberg could all be worthy of a top drive. Alonso clearly is but the way things have gone he's only had a title-capable car three times since 2007 (inclusive) and one year (2012) that was more to do with him driving a perfect season (but for Grosjean's idiotic manoeuvre on the first lap of Belgium, Alonso would've won that title).

    Those three are indeed good, but not *really* good.
    Alonso got his championship winning car(s); that he didn't win more titles is down to some really bad decisions.
    In the same way Verstappen (if he can grow up a bit) will almost certainly get a winning car at some point - it's no secret that Mercedes are interested in signing him, for example.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited August 2

    Mr. B, maybe but things don't always work out. Perez, Grosjean and Hulkenberg could all be worthy of a top drive. Alonso clearly is but the way things have gone he's only had a title-capable car three times since 2007 (inclusive) and one year (2012) that was more to do with him driving a perfect season (but for Grosjean's idiotic manoeuvre on the first lap of Belgium, Alonso would've won that title).

    Massa was also half a lap from the title in 2008, in fact as he crossed the line at Interlagos to win the race his team thought they'd won it - but of course a few seconds later the rain claimed the on-the-wrong-tyres Timo Glock and Lewis got the German on the last corner for his maiden championship.

    Betting on random teenagers to be WC in the future is fraught with difficulty, we all thought the same of Jolyon Palmer a few seasons ago.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022
    PAW said:

    OldKingCole - Interesting comparison here between Tesla model 3 and the 3 series BMW. Not sure what the German manufacturers are up for it.

    Judging by US sales figures, BMW are not. Daimler get it - they are investing billions into battery manufacturing.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    dyingswan said:

    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?

    Brilliant! :+1:
  • calumcalum Posts: 2,696
    edited August 2
    " It is time to hand leadership to an experienced, clear-eyed leader who can dispense with tribal politics and cobble together support from the sensible wings of the major political parties. That leader should be Kenneth Clarke, the current Father of the House "

    https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/ken-clarke-for-prime-minister-20170802
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    I think if that were the case, there might be a sudden shortage of medicines inside the EU, as UK companies own patents on drugs that are currently in constant use in the EU.
    There are benefits from having the EMA in the UK though, and it was one of the strengths of the EEA solution that we might keep it for a number of years - but due to other factors EEA can only be applied now as a shadow interim agreement, and whatever we had planned the EMA would be leaving eventually anyway
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,063
    dyingswan said:

    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?

    Racist!!! :lol:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
    So we do want to participate. :)
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,068
    OldKingCole - but you see that will be nothing to do with paying the ema bill, whatever happens will happen whether we do or not. There is no point in paying. I would much prefer to set up the laboratory equivalent of 'free office space available to start ups', because I feel (not at all sure this is true though) that the trend is for large pharma companies to look to university based research groups.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,756
    not us, but we should wish them good luck
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
    So we do want to participate. :)
    The British medicines market just isn’t big enough.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510
    edited August 2
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
    So we do want to participate. :)
    The British medicines market just isn’t big enough.
    I don't think the idea is that the UK would stop trading with the EU.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
    So we do want to participate. :)
    The British medicines market just isn’t big enough.
    I don't think the idea is that the UK would stop trading with the EU.
    It’s not just ‘trade’ it’s R&D.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Sandpit said:

    dyingswan said:

    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?

    Brilliant! :+1:
    Yes, post of the day. dyingswan
  • King Cole, how so? If they want to stay and we're happy for them to stay, what's the problem?

    The ‘they’ is the staff, not the organisation as a whole. Would we be happy if one of our major regulatory boduies ‘lived’ in a different country?
    At least one does. ESMA overseas financial regulation and is accountable to the EU Parliament. So it has power over the UK but is not located in the UK and is unaccountable to any UK body.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rkrkrk said:

    Update on the European Medicines Agency move...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b13c0c62-76f3-11e7-b874-f49df312558b

    "Britain is on the hook to pay a spiralling €582.5 million bill for relocating the agency as part of EU demands for a Brexit financial settlement, with the bulk of costs arising from a botched rental contract for its Canary Wharf offices. "

    Hopefully the answer will be: "piss off, we aren't asking you to move, and it's not our fault you didn't put a break clause in".
    To which their reply might be 'well if you don't want to participate in the €169Billion pharma market any longer, that's your choice.

    The loss of the EMA is a much bigger loss than haggling over who pays for the rest of the lease on the building. It's the centre of some very lucrative networks from which the UK has benefitted enormously. It is no wonder that other countries are already getting their elbows ready for the tussle to pick up this valuable plum that we are simply giving away.
    The UK is going to be out of the pharmaceutical business completely? I find that hard to believe.
    Out completely? Unlikely. Marginalised? Quite possibly.
    So we do want to participate. :)
    The British medicines market just isn’t big enough.
    I don't think the idea is that the UK would stop trading with the EU.
    It’s not just ‘trade’ it’s R&D.
    I doubt that will stop either.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    edited August 2
    Allan said:

    Sandpit said:

    dyingswan said:

    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?

    Brilliant! :+1:
    Yes, post of the day. dyingswan
    @Allan @Sandpit @Sunil @dyingswan Ah, how you'd love to turn the clock back to 1940 instead of having to live in today's real world!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    RobD said:

    As a Remainer I have to say this looks a bit pathetic and embarassing from the European Commission...

    68% of EU citizens surveyed feel that they are EU citizens ?!

    I see they didn't major on "40% of Europeans have a positive image of the EU (+5 points since autumn 2016)" But I guess that minority will increase a bit once they have got rid of the UK!
  • dyingswan said:

    I have just seen the film Dunkirk. I am appalled. The whole evacuation was flawed and should never have been undertaken for the following reasons.
    1. The evacuation was not carbon neutral.
    2.The personnel used were overwhelmingly white and male. What was the Ministry diversity and equality co-ordinator thinking of?
    3. There is no evidence of a Health and Safety risk evaluation.
    4.Why were not the ships diverted to Calais to rescue asylum seekers and economic migrants as a higher priority?

    Liberals must learn to accept the modern world as it was.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,756
    anyway the big diesel summit in Germany has ended

    the german car industry has decided nohing serious needs to be done to fix their defective diesel engines

    but they did say theyd offer a discount on defective diesel cars so germans could buy another defective diesel car

    VW shares closed up


    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/diesel-affaere/fuenf-millionen-diesel-sollen-mit-neuer-software-sauberer-werden-15133606.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    PAW said:

    OldKingCole - Interesting comparison here between Tesla model 3 and the 3 series BMW. Not sure what the German manufacturers are up for it.

    The Tesla Model 3 is the first potential game changer for electric cars. For those who don't have a long commute and can install a charger at either home or work, it's probably an easy decision to make now, but for the 18 month waiting list if production ramps up as quickly as they expect.

    BUT

    There's a lot of issues still to be resolved, as was discussed on here a week or two ago. Charging infrastructure on main roads is probably the most urgent, followed by the same in areas of street parking in London and other major cities. There's also a lot of government policy to consider, such as power station capacity planning and massively falling tax revenues from regular cars (£50bn in fuel duty and VED last year, that's 10p on income tax if it disappears).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    edited August 2
    Sandpit said:
    The UK got 54%. ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510
    Sandpit said:

    PAW said:

    OldKingCole - Interesting comparison here between Tesla model 3 and the 3 series BMW. Not sure what the German manufacturers are up for it.

    The Tesla Model 3 is the first potential game changer for electric cars. For those who don't have a long commute and can install a charger at either home or work, it's probably an easy decision to make now, but for the 18 month waiting list if production ramps up as quickly as they expect.

    BUT

    There's a lot of issues still to be resolved, as was discussed on here a week or two ago. Charging infrastructure on main roads is probably the most urgent, followed by the same in areas of street parking in London and other major cities. There's also a lot of government policy to consider, such as power station capacity planning and massively falling tax revenues from regular cars (£50bn in fuel duty and VED last year, that's 10p on income tax if it disappears).
    If they do become widely adopted expect power prices to rise. The fixed price per MWh for Hinckley Point may not look so stupid after all.
This discussion has been closed.