RayC

???? Obviously???? Given how quickly the measures worked, I wonder why they don't make the (mini) budgets weekly events?

Markets may be fickle, they may be irrational but their reaction is not unimportant. Your words: "Yes market reaction is unimportant and in this case should definitely be ignored." Therefore you don't think that the BoE should have made any statements or allocated £65m to prop up sterling in recent days? I'd hazard a guess that if the BoE hadn't intervened and commented, the value of sterling would have continued to fall.

On Monday, as the pound fell, government supporters on this board were telling us that the positive effects of the (mini) budget would take time to be felt - rough estimates were upwards of 12 months - and that we should reserve judgement about their success: It was - and remains - a fair comment imo. However, I wake up this morning - after a recovery in the value of the pound - to find a number of these same posters declaring that the problem(s) with sterling is now over and claiming this as proof of the success of last Friday's measures!

Either this is a radical new approach to political economy or it shows a lack of understanding about the (global) economy.

Very seldom (if ever). And ...? It's not the sole criterion for judging her performance but are you suggesting market reaction is unimportant and can be ignored?

Bit early to call 'Problem solved'. In any event, the recovery is no thanks to the government. It is a response to the BoE promising to buy long-dated gilts over the next fortnight at a cost of £65m. Let's see what the market does when the BoE stops intervening.

????Didn't Johnson's administration do that already? Has Truss lifted hostilities? I must of missed that

I'd argue that UK has been in relative decline since, at least, the end of WWI when it was replaced as the world's predominant power by the US. Imo this relative decline will continue. It is almost inevitable that Asian countries such as India will overtake the UK both in terms of economic clout and in terms of political influence on the world stage. Imo there was/is almost certainly nothing that could - or can - be done by any political party to reverse this trend. However, this begs the question how should this decline be managed? I'd argue that working closely with neighbours in Europe such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc who face a similar problem is a good start, but the last - and if the soundings are correct - current UK administration clearly thought and think otherwise.

Shame that the markets don't agree with you.

Not sure why you bring up Brown's record as Chancellor and PM here as he is no longer involved in front-line politics? Unless you still using the 2008 financial crisis as an excuse for the UK's decline over the past 12 years of Tory government? To answer your question directly: I think that Brown's performance as Chancellor and PM had more pluses than minuses. His lasting achievement was to be one of the (the?) leading players in dealing with the worldwide financial crisis. The reason behind the tongue-in-cheek "there is no money left" comment was because £500bn was spent saving the UK banking system from collapse. What would you have done? Let it fail? I'll reserve judgement until closer to the next election but the way things stand, I'm certainly leaning that way.

The greater one's income, the greater the saving https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/income-tax-rate-explained-what-cut-top-rate-bands-means-who-benefit-mini-budget-1874312 To be fair to Truss she stated that this (non) budget was not meant to be redistributive. The acid test will be whether the perceived benefits of this initiative do materialise and it is too early to tell. However, the initial by-products of the measures have been almost entirely negative.

' Afternoon/ ' Evening Trans, I was wondering where you were? Been anywhere nice?

Surely a bank in the US could process it? However, you're probably correct in saying the cheque is worthless. The way sterling is going, you might end up not being able to cover the commission charges!

If it is any comfort I can assure you that we UK-based Brits are treated with equal contempt by HM Passport Office. A friend of mine - who lives in London - recently had to renew his passport. He was advised that doing so by post would take, at least, 13 weeks (no guarantees). He ended up renewing it in person 8 weeks later (the earliest available appointment). Not great but not so bad you might say ....however, his appointment was not in London (not possible; no appointments offered) but Newport. I think that he paid close to £200 before expenses for this "service". My passport is not due for renewal until late 2025. Maybe they might have sorted out things by then???????????? (As usual, bolding unintended)

Coming shortly: Covid was manufactured in, and leaked from, an EU funded laboratory.

That's been the familiar refrain for I don't know how long yet the EU still exists. Maybe the collapse of the EU will coincide with the promised economic benefits of Brexit? On the other hand.....

Deleted

I have no intention of supplying exactly the same link to the same person in every individual thread. Either you are being deliberately obtruse and difficult or you have problems with your memory.

It appeared that the previous UK administration shared your view, which probably goes a long way to explaining the lack of Brexit opportunities afforded to the UK by other nations. The new administration can't do any worse in this regard, can it?

Unbelievable! Absolute tosh. A complete falsehood. You are now reduced to simply making up things to fit your narrative. The EU cannot expel a member state. This was discussed within this thread. Surely you can recall that? ... and now deviation. I asked you for examples of "High Decisions" which might be affected by QMV and you have offered nothing.

There are those (mainly in Brussels) who would welcome a federal Europe, however, it is a small minority. No EU member state supports it. 'Vote Leave' were very successful in planting the idea of a federal Europe in people's minds.

If I pose a question and someone goes to the trouble of supplying a link which addresses the issue, I read it and try to digest its' contents. If I then think that the answer is flawed, I may pose a supplementary. What I don't do is simply dismiss the answer as inconsequential and/or false and instantly forget about it because I don't like it's contents. But hey, each to their own If you don't think that these facts are correct please provide evidence to support this claim. Otherwise, it's just another example of "I know what I know" and "shoot the messenger".

You think it unfair that entities pay for their commitments?

A veto is a veto. Its' power now is the same as it's always been. If a member state vetoes a piece of proposed legislation it will not become law. The number of areas, where a veto can be used, has been reduced. This change formed part of the Lisbon Treaty. If one member state had objected so strongly to the change, it could have vetoed the Treaty. No one did so, presumably, all member states were happy with the proposal. Where/ What's the problem? Any examples of these "Decisions of high importance"? It could be argued that QMV is anti-democratic but not for the reasons you infer. QMV in the EU requires that for a vote to be passed, at least, 55% of member states covering 65% of the EU population is needed.

This analogy doesn't work either. The UK checked out and has left. That's what you Brexiters tell us anyway????