shurlock

As far as I can see Ottaviano has never held a Monnet chair. All I see from his CV is that he held a short Monnet fellowship early in his academic career concurrently with other positions. But that appears it. I might be wrong; if so do clarify. If not, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain little kipper: fellows receive funding based on principles of academic autonomy to research areas related to European integration, regulation, trade. Care to explain how this qualifies as advocacy, Your jumble of links makes little sense. The Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe has nothing to do with these research initiatives (it's not even an official initiative as far as I can tell). Jean Monnet: glad you can read as far as that. This topic is getting too big for you Baldrick. Suffice to say but your own academic shortcomings and misunderstandings are starting to get the better of you.

Of course, it's possible. Which articles are you referring to? Van Reenen's main interest is industrial economics. He is an empiricist: if he comes to the conclusion that immigration has not had a major effect, that conclusion is based on his careful analysis and interpretation of the evidence, not some prior political position. The Brexiter ruse is to conflate the two which is both dangerous and depressing. The worst accusation you can level at an applied economist is bias -and anyone found to be fiddling the numbers or not establishing the robustness of their methods will not survive very long the profession. That's what acadenics care about. The system is not perfect - peer review can lead to subtle pressures to conform. But this is small fry compared to the f**kwit claims being made on this thread.

Some some dull factoids that EU funds academic research? How earth-shattering. To claim anything else is simply fraudulent - indeed the piece provides zero evidence of politicised research (never mind any analysis of the ERC which operates autonomously and whose grants are allocated without predetermined priorities, save to support investigator-led research at the scientific frontier). Rinse and repeat: "The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy". Baldrick, you might ask yourself whether it's sensible to cite a virulently anti-EU source in the context of the role of bias. Keep that in mind the next time you decide to make a massive tit of yourself. As for your general wellbeing and penchant for conspiracies, this might help pal. [video=youtube_share;NZR64EF3OpA] PS: what is this reference to the Monnet Chair, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You really do wear your ignorance like a badge of honour. Not much has changed in 2017, Baldrick. The ESRC which funds this work is a UK research council, a nongovernmental department body. It is the main funder of social science research in the country. Grants are awarded on a peer review basis, made up of UK academics. Any academic economist or social scientist will at some point in their career be funded by the ESRC -just as any academic will have received funding from one of the six other research councils. Monnet Chair? Who are you referring to? That CEP receives 5% of its funding from the EU is again entirely unremarkable. The EU is a funder of the UK research base, one of the primary uses and benefits of the UK's budget contribution. That money is for academic purposes, not consultancy or general funding, fundamentally different activities. There are very strict rules governing how funds are disbursed to ensure academic integrity and independence. Again it may not play to your feverish fantasies but the EU has a strong interest in funding the best research available as it seeks to improve the productivity and competitiveness of its R&D base. The only mistake the CEP has made is that it is a centre of excellence in applied economics. Guilty as charged pal. But no Baldrick, it's all one big racket: with technocrats and academics on the Horizon 2020 board breaking with instinct, procedure and self-interest and acting venally. All while academics are happy to sell their souls, even though most of their research is mindnumbingly technocratic and a big reason why they've gone into academia is because they value their autonomy over other objectives. Extending your swivel-eyed logic, Baldrick, you're a drug dealer because the fiver you handed over this morning contained traces of cocaine. Better stop here: the EU establishment may be listening in on this and controlling us with microwave beams...duck and cover, little kipper. #followthemoney

Edit

Read the original post that motivated it. You very well know what's being discussed. Or maybe you're coming to the realisation that your merry band of brexiters won't be able to have your cake and eat it. See how far a bit of honesty and courage gets you.

Sweeping generalisations and empty platitudes just make you look a bit dim. The LSE economics dept, home of Friedrick Hayek, one of Thatcher's heros? John Van Reenen, the lead author, is the most respected academic economist in the UK -well he's now at MIT. He is known for careful empirical and econometric work and doesn't do 'forecasts' in case you want to venture down that route. FYI he was and is opposed to the UK joining the Euro. What precisely don't you agree with in the analysis at hand. Feel free to explain pal.

And yet the actual impact has been nowhere near as big as you rabidly like to tell yourself. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

What you really want to say pal is that you earn more than that and have a bigger house and driveway to boot.

Yes I read the same Beeb article. You left out the most important point: "Because the UK already complies with single market regulations, a UK-EU free trade deal on goods may be fairly straightforward. But the UK's service sector is about 80% of our economy and the City of London dominates financial services in the EU. In the negotiations that would follow a British exit from the EU everything would depend on the deal the remaining EU members wanted to cut. And the Remain campaign insists the EU would demand the UK accepts free movement and common regulations in any deal that provides single market access". No matter how many times the EU says Freedom of Movement (FoM) is critical to any prospective deal, we're told that the plucky UK is going to have its cake and eat it, that the EU can't really mean what it says and, failing that, belligerent Jonny Foreigner is cutting its nose off to spite its face. A lack of historical nous and empathy prevents our little kippers from understanding why FoM is politically so important to most Europeans, especially those who used to be trapped inside the Eastern Bloc; why passporting into the Eurozone is so economically sensitive given the UK's unique ability to sell financial products into what is tantamount another economy, impacting among other things its central bank (the ECB) exposure; and why the EU budget is structured the way it is (a mechanism to compensate those countries and regions who've agreed to open up their markets to the UK and other advanced competitors, notwithstanding the fact that doing so threatens local industry, employment and tax base). None of this features on the Kipper radar; if it did, the UK might be in a better position to negotiate and understand the complex set of interests and trade-offs at stake. No, instead we have a combination of arrogance and ignorance that will ultimately lead to massive disappointment.

Drinking the Kool-Aid again Les? Who has access to the single market?

You utter helmet

You transcribed the following: "we have not rejected the idea of an additional year as such". Doesn't necessarily mean we offered him an extension.

Phrased as you've put it, the idea that we offered an extra year seems a bit more ambiguous. Les being a politician with the truth?

Because we've gone from the bottom of league 1 to the top 6 in a very short space of time and have built a state-of-the-art training ground/academy (for all the grumbling). It's normal for any 'growth' company. Indeed we've been lucky that we've been able to fund expansion through debt rather than equity (which isn't usually the case) given historically low interest rates, the tax benefits of debt and loss of control rights associated with equity. All things considered, KL has done exceptionally well in return given the tangible and intangible assets she's now sitting on (the value of which current financial accounting struggles with - see Lev and Gu's excellent new book). If she sold tmrw -and a PL football club is a relatively liquid asset, she'd make a very tidy profit. We are in a healthy position. People just don't understand corporate finance, valuation and the lifecycle of companies.

They rotated a lot during the group stages iirc.

Youngest team in the league too.

Doubt it. Wasn't Black a Remi Garde appointment?

Use of debt could just be for tax planning purposes.

According to the reports, his wages (£65K p/w) are outside our budget.

Happy new year les. First let's be clear: the fault of negotiations lies squarely with Cameron -from the way he consistently mishandled relations with the EU after he became to PM to demanding things neither he or anyone could get. Alas his demands were stunts, designed to play well with bumpkins and yokels like you. Second you really don't have a clue about the ethos and nature of the civil service, do you? Regardless of his personal beliefs and enthusiasms, Rogers is a technically skilled professional and would have negotiated to his brief, whatever it was. And for what it's worth, he was not a 'native'. He likely played a key role in keeping the UK out of the Euro given he was Gordon Brown's EU advisor at the Treasury and Brown and the Treasury were the main opponents to the Euro. Again platitudes about not batting for the UK grotesquely and monumentally miss the point. Jonathan Powell puts it nicely: "If we are moving into a world where civil servants cannot give frank advice and cannot point out where the elephant traps lie, then ministers will fall into them. Even worse, if Prime Minister Theresa May does as Eurosceptic ministers seem to be urging, which is appoint a replacement on the basis of their political beliefs, then we will have fatally undermined one of the fundamental principles of our unwritten constitution". Epic f**kwittery once again. You're setting for yourself a blinding 2017 pal. N.B. Thankfully May has resisted the populist baiting to appoint a yesman.

Sell Long. He's a glorified hurler stealing a living.

3.6/10.

For starters, I doubt it brought about Brexit and the UK came away with a number of concessions. If you think Cameron was going to get everything he wanted -and by all accounts, Cameron didn't sound out what was feasible and in what time frame, then you're seriously deluded. But hey it's in the brexiter DNA. The UK hasn't the leverage to call the shots; now then and not now. It may not flatter your ignorant ego but that's the truth pal.

So the UK's most seasoned, astute negotiator has quit. And negotiations haven't even started yet. #amateurism