Guy de Jonquières

@DavidGHFrost That’s what can happen once “we take back control”. That’s what you fought for and insist is right for Britain. So why are you complaining about it now?

I remember, as a Foreign Office official in 2001/2, leading the diplomatic campaign against the EU's attempt to impose a max 48-hour week. That was under Blair's Labour government. Now a new Labour govt wants to make a 4-day week the norm. It's a very different Labour Party, and anyone in it with any economic sense must be silently cringing at this anti-growth craziness. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/…

@michaelxpettis 8. government back in 1946 mainly to support smaller companies and metamorphosed into 3i Group. The latter, though, is no longer state-owned and operates in continental Europe and North America as well as in the UK.

@michaelxpettis 7. and rising trade barriers make such strategies untenable as well as aggravating global excess capacity. Finally, I couldn't read the WSJ article you posted on the French bank. However, from its website, it sounds rather similar to Britain's ICFC, which was established by the

1/4 Bloomberg: "No other European country has an agency quite like Bpifrance: a for-profit, state-owned merchant bank with a mandate to foster national champions." France is using Bpifrance to implement a production-oriented industrial policy. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

@michaelxpettis 1. A problem with discussions about industrial policy is that it is a portmanteau term that covers all manner of things. I would argue that every country has an industrial policy, determined by its choice of fiscal policy, regional and education policy, regulatory systems,

@guydej1 1/5 I cited South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, Guy, because you seemed to suggest that small countries cannot engage in industrial policy, but I could have also mentioned that perhaps the two most successful cases of industrial policy – the US and Japan – are democracies.

@michaelxpettis 3. Conditions have changed insofar as China has supplanted Japan as the (far bigger) competitive threat. But that doesn’t make industrial intervenrionism based on state subsidies, preferential procurement and trade protection any more likely to succeed than in the past.

@michaelxpettis 2. government and ended up running up vast debts that helped precipitate the country’s 1998 economic crisis. There is no comparison with the mature economies in democracies faced with manufacturing decline or lagging tech industries. That’s a completely different ballgame.

@michaelxpettis a very large domestic market that provides scale economies and, unlike France, is not subject to EU rules limiting state aids to industry. What makes conditions today any more favourable to national champion policies than they were when tried in the past?

@michaelxpettis And very different countries with totally different political and economic systems. One a fairly open capitalist democracy with, at present, a very weak government and stretched public finances; the other a one-party autocracy with massive control over the economy. China also has

@swanage123 @BEERG Please explain how you would "make Brexit work". After eight years for fruitless effort, what has been left untried?

@BEERG The voice of reason at last. To rejoin would be incredibly difficult and will probably never happen so put all that effort and expertise behind making Brexit work, rather than trying to sabotage it at every opportunity.

A thought for a Sunday morning. What happens if the UK never rejoins the EU or the SM/CU? I would say that it is a strong possibility that it never will. The politics, on both sides, could be too difficult. People need to think about the UK permanently outside the EU.

@GoodwinMJ So much for the claim that the rioters represent or reflect the views of millions of decent, hardworking, patriotic British people. yougov.co.uk/politics/artic…

What you are witnessing in Britain today is the direct result of failed policies that have been imposed on the country for much of the last 30 years. Mass, uncontrolled immigration. The refusal to do what needs to be done to regain control of our borders. The failure to integrate newcomers. The refusal to counter radical Islamism and even recognise the very obvious failings of multiculturalism. The continued promises to lower mass immigration only to then lie to the British people by doing the opposite. And the growing tendency among the radicalising "liberal" left -as we see again this weekend- to try and silence and stigmatise all those who have been pointing to these very obvious causes as "racists", "xenophobes", and "grifters". My view is this. If you are idiotic enough to break the law then you should be arrested. And if you are stupid enough to use violence against police officers and emergency workers then you should face the full force of the law. Much like those antisemitic, pro-Hamas, Black Lives Matter protestors and Islamist sympathisers should have faced consequences when they too broke the law. But what is also crystal clear is that these protests are just the tip of the iceberg. What lies beneath are millions of decent, hardworking, patriotic British people who have simply had enough of these disastrous policies, of being told they are "racist" or "far right" for wanting to change course, and who are routinely shut out of the national conversation. They are sick of an elite class that after watching British children be blown apart at pop concerts, murdered at dance classes, and sexually assaulted by Muslim gangs on an industrial scale continues to gaslight them by saying what this is really about is "social media", "misinformation", "disinformation", and "right-wing grifters coordinating riots from their holidays". As I say below --and no, I won't delete it--a serious response to these events begins with acknowledging that the status-quo is completely broken. No community in history has pursued this level of mass immigration and demographic change while having no integration strategy and come out on the other side as a healthy, vibrant, strong, high-trust, prosperous society. So what do we need to do? We need to end the policy of mass immigration. We need a freeze on all non-essential migration so that we at least stand a chance of absorbing and managing the record migration of the last quarter-century. We need to leave the ECHR, reform the Human Rights Act, and do whatever we can to regain control of our own borders. A country that cannot even control who is coming in and out is not a serious country. We need a new debate and policy on immigration in this country which, in my view, has now become far too dependent on people from outside Europe, who neither share our values nor way of life. We need to protect and promote free speech, free expression and free assembly so that people feel they have a voice, not rush to shut it down because the ruling class no longer understands what is happening. And we need, in short, to be doing the very opposite of what the current Labour government is doing, and what the previous Conservative governments accelerated. And we need to start doing it now. mattgoodwin.org

@sundersays This YouGov poll rather punctures Matthew Goodwin’s - totally unevidenced - claim that the rioters, or even the peaceful protesters, represent the views of “ordinary British people”. What does he base his arguments on?yougov.co.uk/politics/artic…

That is something Matthew Goodwin is failing to do with his "what did you expect" narrative + his demands that arguments that were not won by his allies in the General Election must now be conceded to street protests, including racist violence x.com/sundersays/sta…

Jacob Rees-Mogg pushes back very strongly against Steven Edgington's effort to relegitimise Enoch Powell. Even Edgington eventually concedes the language is incendiary and racist.

Electoral Commission is yet to receive any request for an investigation from Reform