I imagine British companies mint it from open procurement. We've got the sort of high-end services industry that must be constantly getting contracts from other governments for legal / financial / consultancy services.

I imagine British companies mint it from open procurement. We've got the sort of high-end services industry that must be constantly getting contracts from other governments for legal / financial / consultancy services.

Does that £12m take into account the taxes that are lost?

I doubt it, but if you spend that £12m on nurses you generate more tax revenue through them. So it's not unreasonable to ignore it. You can handwave about corporation tax paid by the British passport firm, I suppose, but then you can also put the opportunity costs of not having enough nurses on the other side of the ledger if you really want to go down this rabbit hole.

Like the money will go to nurses

It will, of course, go on tax breaks for the 1% who will invest that money wisely to create jobs and make us all richer

My point is your original post is a variation on the broken windows fallacy. It's not typically a good idea to pay £120m extra for the same service merely to receive the secondary economic effects it will generate. Working out where this overlaps with Keynesian stimuli is an exercise for the reader.

You can’t take the tax revenue into account because if you were to do so, you’re assuming that no economic activity would be generated in its place by those people. That’s not a reasonable assertion in a near full employment economy.

This is literally what I said.

Consider the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, revealed in a leaked WhatsApp exchange to have asked colleagues to explain the EU customs union to her because she was having problems defending her widely stated opposition to it. This is an almost perfect distillation of what happens when furious ignorance is afforded the same weight as evidence-based explication. Having received the required explanation, incidentally, Dorries concluded that her difficulty understanding it fully justified her opposition to membership of it.

What we have said is quite clearly you cannot negotiate everything before the divorce. We need to have an interim period when the status quo prevails. So the question then is, what is the nature of the divorce?

So far if the evidence of the past few months is anything to go on, it is going to be a ‘blah, blah, blah’ divorce. It is not going to make any decisions, it is going to continue to kick things down the road. We don’t seem to have come to any difficult decisions at the moment.

So the difficulty with a meaningful vote in October - which we have secured - is what is it that we are going to be agreeing on ? We have our six tests. If you hold up ‘blah, blah, blah’ to the six tests, it will probably pass it and then we leave the EU and then we are in the status quo and during that period there has to be a negotiation as to what our final relationship is going to be.

So I just hope upon hope we have a general election in the meantime and the grown-ups turn up, so it is decree nisi rather than a decree absolute.

Was that transcribed by an V1 Alexa bot with dodgy hearing?

"Well, first of all, what I'm clear about," begins May, before she proceeds to be clear about absolutely nothing.

My point was merely "it's complicated".

Leave.EU: we have the best domain name
The European Union: Hold our bier

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/ ... n-names_en

“One thing we have already learned from Brexit is that the UK does not have a better idea. It does not have a replacement for the union as a way to improve the life quality of its citizens, its businesses and its standing in the world,”

A Labour frontbencher has denounced one of the party's key Brexit policies in a recording of a questions session at a think-tank, obtained by the BBC.

Barry Gardiner used colourful language to rubbish the party's pledge to secure the exact same benefits as the single market after Brexit.....


Speaking about the "six tests" Labour set the government to decide whether to support the final Brexit deal in a Commons vote, he said: "Well let's just take one test - the exact same benefits. Bollocks.

"Always has been bollocks and it remains it."

A lunchtime fuck on the Third was [...] most unexpected.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/10/brexit-nightmares-britain-is-about-to-face-the-bureaucratic

This is good

A REVIVAL of the 1970's dinner party classic the cheese fondue could be down to Remainers longing to bond with the rest of Europe, an Oxford professor has claimed.

Hey, here's another entry for our on-going list of 'the Benefits of Brexit':

Fondue.

Swiss Cheese Mafia