It’s The Latte Latte Delta Tea Break 2018

[Mike Bell]

Hey, it’s the right way up. The photo I mean....

Is that the T61 you ran at Goody with young Mr Bryant driving- fitted with the 5.0 litre V8 Maserati engine? It’s a good looking car.

Any idea how it compares performance wise with the Ford and Chevy versions? Billy B has often said that the ‘King Cobra’ can be a bit scary......

I’m guessing the Italian engine is lighter, being aluminium. Just been reading up and find that the alloy Buick engine (that Rover bought) was also used in the Cooper, and was 20kg lighter than a 2.7 Climax!

[delta]

Since Goodwood we have done a full suspension rebuild . 1st time have driven the car was today . Loved it . The owner was waiting for me remark on the cars faults but there weren’t any . Looking forward to driving at Philip Island now . Lucky boy .

[midgetman]

Ah not this one then which played a large part in my childhood.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Willmaz223]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Ah not this one then which played a large part in my childhood.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I WANT ONE 😃

[midgetman]

Early 1970s, my dad was spanner monkey on this car when Jonty Williamson ran it in sprints and on the hills. He won the sprint championship in 1971 I think, he had a 7.2(?) Chrysler engine in the back.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[grantp]

Well, with mention of the Cooper Maserati I suddenly realised that some shots I took back in July had, for reasons I can't work out, not made it finished output folders. Mostly shots of the Cooper.


So here as some of them that were AWOL from the material shot as the Stoke Row and Nuffield Motor Sport Day.

[E.B]

What a glorious car.... cant wait to see it (and hear it) at PI!

[bauble]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Early 1970s, my dad was spanner monkey on this car when Jonty Williamson ran it in sprints and on the hills. He won the sprint championship in 1971 I think, he had a 7.2(?) Chrysler engine in the back.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Pedro Rodriguez won the opening round of the 1967 World Championship in South Africa driving a Cooper Maserati such as the one shown.

[justracing]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

A very British way of doing things? London Bridge Station last Tuesday.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcFzmDwH8w

Certainly made me smile.

Many thanks for this uplifting post, certainly brightened an otherwise cold, wet and miserable day.
Just been catching up on a few pages as we've been in the throws of moving house(not recommended at this time of year) and the whole experience has been really traumatic from the inevitable delays in transferring funds between the legal parties involved and the seemingly inordinate amount of packing boxes. When you're 70+ this sort of activity pulls on your resources more than you think and I'm feeling the pain but at least we are now reconnected to the interweb thingy giving access to a bit of escapism.
Most enlightening information from Peter and Peter on the state of our nation, I've probably gleaned more information on here than the last 10 years of listening to the babbling from government representatives on the news stations. I'm still not sure I understand the full ramifications of Brexit but to a mere individual I have rather more pressing matters occupying my time at present, roll on next years racing season.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

OK, snow stopped play - e.g. I can't be bothered to de-ice the car just yet!

As we both say the obvious day to day benefits are things like roaming charges, free travel, investment in infrastructure and so on.
Most of the discussion has been based on the red-tape side but there are many other aspects to the EU, which probably have a wider impact on people's lives than the red-tape which affect a limited range of topics.

Homogenous technical regulations make a lot of sense but how you agree such things isn't obvious given that everyone wants to look after their own interests.

If the EU is reliant on EU produced goods that is presumably to the benefit of European countries' industries which doesn't sound like a bad starting point - many countries tend to buy local, hence France still has a car industry, while the UK's decision to import foreign coal didn't do much good for the home grown industry etc.

Yes, you are correct this is more of a philosophical argument than a political issue. I'm reminded of the Monty Python Life of Brian "what has Rome done for us" sketch.

That said the problem with making things a closed shop is that you run out of options and thus when you need to look outside of your own area, something engineering and construction companies do, you are unable to use "or equal and approved" technology and thus your costs are increased.

As to France and its motor industry, are you aware that it is illegally subsidised by the French government?

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

DUP reference was to the approach to negotiations, given the only word they seem to utter is NO! If you take an active part in negotiations there is more chance of having an influence on the outcome. Years ago I knew people that were fed up with Mrs T's constantly saying No to everything and then having to agree to whatever the others had decided - and these were people working within her govt.!

Yes, that I can accept. Although the border thing is a red herring set up by the EU negotiators and then promolgated by the Irish government in order to twist arms and delay/obviate Brexit. Again it amazes me that a country that is a net importer of energy, mostly from the UK, would cut off its nose to spite its face. If it goes down this route it will end up having to pay more for its power.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Countries financial difficulties are possibly an issue but given they aren't going to move, they wouldn't seem to be a major financial risk for lenders? Isn't it the case that America was theoretically bankrupt for years (we know that it is currently morally bankrupt)?

Sadly that is not the case. Check out Moody's or Standard and Poor's assessment of Italy and Greece. I believe it was just above junk status last week. The ECB is unable to act as a lender of last resort because the German treasury cannot legally permit such an action. Hence the North/South divide and the problems for Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal. This is also why the UK was asked to loan £9bn to Ireland since it is not in the euro thus does not suffer the problems that Euro States suffer.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

As for youth unemployment the EU are well aware of the problem and looking at solutions, but they need long term solutions to an issue that has been building for years (due to increased life expectancy, changes in activities and many other issues).

Again it comes back to the financing, without the ability to support industries the problem will remain, if not increase.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Quick fix short term solutions aren't a viable answer - the UK keep telling us how many jobs they have created, but it looks like most of those jobs are of poor quality (insecure, poorly paid) and often the result of turning a full time job into several part time ones - that isn't a long term solution.

One issue with job creation is the value for money aspect, if you spend a million a year and it supports 50 jobs, you want to be sure that those people earn considerably more than 20 grand a year, otherwise it would have been more effective to simply give them the money.

Agreed, but then again nothing is perfect and it would surprise me if various EU states aren't doing a similar thing.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

The UK being the 5th largest economy is I suspect one of its problems (e.g. it sounds far more impressive than it is) - that figure is seemingly based on a turnover type figure and given that a huge proportion is based on service industries that means the people who are benefitting from the figures are the Deutsche, Swiss, French and so on companies who's name is on the door of the leading companies.
e.g. what is more beneficial to the local economy, a large foreign company that pays remarkably little tax and takes it's profits back home or a local industry that pays an appropriate amount of tax and employs lots of local people?

Hmm, well it's virtually the same as Germany so I'm not sure the point is valid. You see whilst those companies may not have to pay high tax bills [needs checking] the people/businesses using their services pay VAT, the salaries attract income tax and thus the turnover increases.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

I didn't know that the UK election includes who you want to be PM, I thought it was just a case that the party you vote for tell you who they will chose? Ultimately it shouldn't really matter because they are meant to be part of a democratic process and there is a consensus for decisions rather than some form of dictatorship.

Well people vote for a party and the leader of that party becomes PM. Ergo, the voters vote for a prime minister. Surely your reference to a dictatorship refers to the EU constitution whereby the people don't get to vote for the president etc.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

That history of the EU thing is strange, no mention of the European Coal & Steel community etc. but it does explain the name of a few bus/tram stops around Brussels!!

Yes, it is strange but a good example of the confusion surrounding the entire organisation.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Now to the crux/current issue:
The disgruntled people; what is really strange is why people felt that leaving the EU was the solution to home grown problems.
It's very easy to understand why people are annoyed about the lack of infrastructure (hospitals, transport, education and so on), their financial plight, reliance on cheap immigrant labour and so on.
But the EU wasn't responsible for decades of tax cuts (e.g. reduction in funding for infrastructure), lack of investment, selling off the family silver, growth in reliance on borrowing, austerity measures and reliance on other countries training of staff etc.

There are many different reasons people had for leaving the EU, the problem is the govt. did not tell the public what their reason was - it's actually taken them 2 years to tell anyone what they want - so some people will find it offers what they wanted but many others will find it doesn't have any bearing on it.

If there had been a plan the govt. would have presented the current withdrawal document the day after starting Article 50 at which point they should have had 2 years to tie up the details. Instead they decided to take 2 years to work out what we want and then will need a similar amount of time to sort the details out.
If people are already fed up with how long it's taken so far, how chuffed will they be to find out that they've just about reached the starting point!!

Perhaps Mr Cameron will come back to sort out the mess he created in an attempt to save his bacon (intentional pig pun).

Peter who's now off to play with the snow now (e.g. hopes it's melted).

I have no idea what the campaigns said since neither side could put a cogent argument together. As I said above it's a much more philosophical argument. However going back to your opinion that lower taxes and funding; as I explained the EU cannot just pump money into a state, it has to have a reason, so you get roads and railways that nobody wants (see Greece), international airports that will never see an aircraft (see Italy) etc. This is the EU spreading its largesse at the taxpayer's expense.

No, the UK is never going to be perfect but when it voted to join the EEC it did not vote to join the EU Federation. The Factortame case was the first time the public realised that the ECJ had taken over the UK legal system https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...munity-law.php and to reinforce that here is what the late Lord Denning said.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred..._Baron_Denning

Originally Posted by Speech in the House of Lords (31 July 1986) against the Single European Act

Fundamental to our constitution is the supremacy of the Queen in Parliament and that our laws should be enacted by Parliament, by its authority in regulations, or indeed by judges in declaring the common law. That is what I understand is meant by the supremacy and sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. I hope to show you in the course of my observations that that sovereignty is being eroded and that we are coming under another sovereignty—that of Europe and of the Council of Ministers. That is the challenge we face today.

And that is the crux of the matter. By the way the original Factortame case came up in (I think) 1979).

Originally Posted by bauble

Peter (Morley).

You clearly have a decent grasp on the working of the EU, and perhaps understand the benefits better than people like me do. I voted to leave, but did not even attempt to understand the ramifications of the decision, anymore than I attempted to understand the 'benefits' of joining in the first place. I was always dead against that, and curse Major for dragging us in.

I vote on instinct believing that as a nation the UK is better off looking after itself, and not getting involved politically with continental Europe.

It is a sort of unashamed 'jingoism', probably as a result of growing up at war with Germany and having to save most of Europe from the Nazis.
I might be selfish at 81 years old, but am prepared to suffer years of hardship to escape the dead hand of Brussels.

It is not all logic, mostly 'gut instinct', but that is the best reason as far as I am concerned.

having stated my position I do find your posts most interesting, and well presented, who knows I might even change my mind.

Kind regards,

Bob.

And Bob reinforces my point that we aren't arguing about tangible benefits or disadvantages, we are discussing freedom of choice and management and control of our own destiny.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by bauble

Peter (Morley).

You clearly have a decent grasp on the working of the EU, and perhaps understand the benefits better than people like me do. I voted to leave, but did not even attempt to understand the ramifications of the decision, anymore than I attempted to understand the 'benefits' of joining in the first place. I was always dead against that, and curse Major for dragging us in.

I vote on instinct believing that as a nation the UK is better off looking after itself, and not getting involved politically with continental Europe.

It is a sort of unashamed 'jingoism', probably as a result of growing up at war with Germany and having to save most of Europe from the Nazis.
I might be selfish at 81 years old, but am prepared to suffer years of hardship to escape the dead hand of Brussels.

It is not all logic, mostly 'gut instinct', but that is the best reason as far as I am concerned.

having stated my position I do find your posts most interesting, and well presented, who knows I might even change my mind.

Kind regards,

Bob.

Bob

Spending my youth in bars around the EU buildings made it hard to avoid running into EU people etc.!

Funnily enough the reason many Belgians say they appreciate EU membership goes back to wars but they are happy with it because their country hasn't been occupied for quite some time!

It's always interesting/surprising to compare the different points of views between countries that were invaded with those that weren't
Similarly it's noticeable from the outside that the EU is presented in a very different way in the UK to other countries.

My overall feeling is that membership gives the benefit of "economies of scale", e.g. as with shops/businesses/collective purchasing the more there are of you the better deal you get.

Peter
p.s. must congratulate your Luton cutey on her deserved victory in the BBC's popularity/dancing contest on Saturday!

[justracing]

"As to France and its motor industry, are you aware that it is illegally subsidised by the French government?"
Fascinating, in what sense is it illegal?

[Peter Mallett]

They do it by low interest "loans". As far as legality is concerned subsidizing an EU State's industries is an EU no, no. This was the case in 2014 IIRC.

[justracing]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

They do it by low interest "loans". As far as legality is concerned subsidizing an EU State's industries is an EU no, no. This was the case in 2014 IIRC.

Ok, typically French then!

[Peter Mallett]

Of course!

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes, you are correct this is more of a philosophical argument than a political issue. I'm reminded of the Monty Python Life of Brian "what has Rome done for us" sketch.

That said the problem with making things a closed shop is that you run out of options and thus when you need to look outside of your own area, something engineering and construction companies do, you are unable to use "or equal and approved" technology and thus your costs are increased.

As to France and its motor industry, are you aware that it is illegally subsidised by the French government?



Yes, that I can accept. Although the border thing is a red herring set up by the EU negotiators and then promolgated by the Irish government in order to twist arms and delay/obviate Brexit. Again it amazes me that a country that is a net importer of energy, mostly from the UK, would cut off its nose to spite its face. If it goes down this route it will end up having to pay more for its power.



Sadly that is not the case. Check out Moody's or Standard and Poor's assessment of Italy and Greece. I believe it was just above junk status last week. The ECB is unable to act as a lender of last resort because the German treasury cannot legally permit such an action. Hence the North/South divide and the problems for Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal. This is also why the UK was asked to loan £9bn to Ireland since it is not in the euro thus does not suffer the problems that Euro States suffer.



Again it comes back to the financing, without the ability to support industries the problem will remain, if not increase.



Agreed, but then again nothing is perfect and it would surprise me if various EU states aren't doing a similar thing.



Hmm, well it's virtually the same as Germany so I'm not sure the point is valid. You see whilst those companies may not have to pay high tax bills [needs checking] the people/businesses using their services pay VAT, the salaries attract income tax and thus the turnover increases.



Well people vote for a party and the leader of that party becomes PM. Ergo, the voters vote for a prime minister. Surely your reference to a dictatorship refers to the EU constitution whereby the people don't get to vote for the president etc.



Yes, it is strange but a good example of the confusion surrounding the entire organisation.



I have no idea what the campaigns said since neither side could put a cogent argument together. As I said above it's a much more philosophical argument. However going back to your opinion that lower taxes and funding; as I explained the EU cannot just pump money into a state, it has to have a reason, so you get roads and railways that nobody wants (see Greece), international airports that will never see an aircraft (see Italy) etc. This is the EU spreading its largesse at the taxpayer's expense.

No, the UK is never going to be perfect but when it voted to join the EEC it did not vote to join the EU Federation. The Factortame case was the first time the public realised that the ECJ had taken over the UK legal system https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...munity-law.php and to reinforce that here is what the late Lord Denning said.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred..._Baron_Denning

And that is the crux of the matter. By the way the original Factortame case came up in (I think) 1979).



And Bob reinforces my point that we aren't arguing about tangible benefits or disadvantages, we are discussing freedom of choice and management and control of our own destiny.

I see that the comment on the French motor industry has already been picked up on, I was aware that there are some "issues" but given nothing has come of any complaints about it assume they have justified it?

I was amused by a TV show when someone said that British railways are State owned, the problem is that it is the French and German states that own them!
Not sure how true that is but it goes back to the issue of selling off the silver, many people accept that German industries etc. are doing alright and then slag off the EU - which seems to overlook the fact they are also members.
A noticeable difference is their attitude to businesses, with longer term business plans, investing in them and so on (possibly helped by not spending so much money on weapons).
A friend was telling me about the German version of Dragon's Den, saying how much more money they invested and far more likely to take a punt on something. Which seems to reflect the differences in "real life" business as well.

You say that Ireland are a net importer of energy and cutting of their nose etc. but that is the case for the UK, it is a net importer and most of its basic needs come from Europe.
Even Bernard Matthew's Norfolk turkeys turned out to come from Holland!!

Belgium's apparently just connected a very long extension cable to the UK to cover possible shortages (a lot of the reactors are currently not working) but they could be buying the power from the French even though it comes from the UK!!

Which is just another example of how complicated such things are these days and it's probably impossible for one country to take back control of everything - even North Korea seems to be reaching out!

I think there are some countries where you actually vote for the PM directly rather than indirectly by choosing their party.
That might seem to be a similar thing but it is different, especially if you have proportional representation.

The thing with the large internationals paying some local taxes and so on is true, but what is particularly noticeable in the UK is that the employees/recipients just end up paying vastly inflated prices for property (and goods) in a small area which only benefits a small number of property owners and businesses (usually foreign of course!).
The quantitative easing programmes seem to have been beneficial to historic racing though, with many of those who benefit from the "free" money spending it like it grows on trees!
Again of benefit to only a small sector.

The EU doesn't just fund large infrastructure programmes (like unused roads/airports) it also supports many small projects - one I had some involvement with was the Paul McCartney LIPA school in Liverpool, hardly a massive (or underused) project. All the little EU flags on tourist attractions (many of which are in areas that voted to leave) are another clue!

At the end of the day we end up saying the same thing - no system is perfect
and the preferred choice depends on your personal opinion.
And personal opinions seem to depend a lot on your location/point of view.

Incidentally, I think someone described me as a remainer which is amusing given I fecked off years ago!!

Peter

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by delta

Attachment 52317
Here you go.

I supplied a gearbox for that - apparently it consumes them avidly!

[Gerard C]

Yes, French state is share holder in both Peugeot and Renault, around 20/25%, this was supposed to avoid any financial failure and fund research around EV's.
More important from my point of view, they changed the rules for the pensions, was 2004 I guess, and another time more recently. Is this legal? I dont think so. Do you know a game where one party can change the rules in its favor during the game?
When they take/took money to fund the pensions, we could neither discuss the rate nor how the money was used. Its obvious that at least this part of our system is rotten, meaning probably bankrupt because they can't give the money back. If I'm correct, its the responsibility of any government to guarantee this payment.
I feel I'm not clear, will try another way.
You work in France. Taxes all collected on your work by your employer, before you get the almost net amount, then have to pay income tax. One part will fund your pension when you retire. All the percentages are not to be negotiated.
They need to change the rules? Fair enough. But why a retroactive process? Should this be brought to our cherished european court may be our gov' would have to reconsider its position.
If you see so many French retired living in Portugal, Spain, Morocco or Senegal its not only for the sun but to preserve a decent level of living. Or semi-decent…
Peter is this clear and real, please?

[Gerard C]

It is a fact that one in seven dwarves is Grumpy. You mean the French one? No more communication problem, then…

[Peter Mallett]

Oddly enough one of my favourite places is Brittany. Especially the Cote d'emerode. Property prices are extremely good value but then you look at the rules. If you live in France and are retired you pay french tax on your UK pension, which I believe is in the range of 40%. Whereas in the UK we pay 25% on annual sums above £12,500 which I think is the tax allowance.

So, whilst it would be great to move to France, the reality is that the cost of living is prohibitive.

Peter. I don't believe any UK railways are state owned whether by the UK, France or Germany since they are run by some seriously poor private companies.

As to the UK being a net importer of power? Again slightly inaccurate since we still have oil and gas and export those products, likewise we have wind and nuclear. Yes at times we need back up from across the channel hence the inter connector and the cross channel cables. Both of which are reversible.

[bauble]

Peter

p.s. must congratulate your Luton cutey on her deserved victory in the BBC's popularity/dancing contest on Saturday!

Peter, your knowledge of the EU is greater than mine as is your knowledge of 'Luton Cuteys', and BBC dancing programmes! I have no idea who you are referring to. I must stay in more.

PS I did note that Geraint Thomas won a contest on BBC, probably well deserved, but I don't think he comes from Luton.

Keep up the good work, you certainly have Peter 2, working his computer overtime.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

I supplied a gearbox for that - apparently it consumes them avidly!

Colotti?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Peter. I don't believe any UK railways are state owned whether by the UK, France or Germany since they are run by some seriously poor private companies.

And some of those seriously poor companies are owned by foreign state railway companies. Arriva UK Trains runs about 25% of British trains and is a totally owned subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn.

Meanwhile, ScotRail is owned by the Dutch state railway.

Meanwhile, another large chunk of the UK's railways is run by Govia, a company jointly owned by Go Ahead (UK based) and Keolis which is based in Paris with 70% owned by SCNF (French state railways) and the remainder by an investment arm of the city of Quebec.

Another large operator is First Group which from memory is nominally British owned but a lot of it's profits appear to disappear overseas to tax-free bolt holes.

[Mike Bell]

Bloodhound SSC WLR project saved!

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...000mph-project

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

Yes, French state is share holder in both Peugeot and Renault, around 20/25%, this was supposed to avoid any financial failure and fund research around EV's.
More important from my point of view, they changed the rules for the pensions, was 2004 I guess, and another time more recently. Is this legal? I dont think so. Do you know a game where one party can change the rules in its favor during the game?
When they take/took money to fund the pensions, we could neither discuss the rate nor how the money was used. Its obvious that at least this part of our system is rotten, meaning probably bankrupt because they can't give the money back. If I'm correct, its the responsibility of any government to guarantee this payment.
I feel I'm not clear, will try another way.
You work in France. Taxes all collected on your work by your employer, before you get the almost net amount, then have to pay income tax. One part will fund your pension when you retire. All the percentages are not to be negotiated.
They need to change the rules? Fair enough. But why a retroactive process? Should this be brought to our cherished european court may be our gov' would have to reconsider its position.
If you see so many French retired living in Portugal, Spain, Morocco or Senegal its not only for the sun but to preserve a decent level of living. Or semi-decent…
Peter is this clear and real, please?

The UK Government, under socialist Gordon Brown but the other political parties did not seem to complain much, did exactly the same thing with pensions. It is also why they "encourage" savings on the basis that once one has "savings" invested and are paying other companies to look after them for you if becomes a lot easier for the government to take control of that money in some way to pay for the shortfall in their budgets.

Or, to put that another way, they can use what you think is your money to find those things that it offer you to make you think they are "giving" you something.


It has pretty much always been that way but back in the days of tithe payments was somewhat localised.

Once the merchant classes started to gain control over a larger part of the economy ( and so the cash generation capability to find wars and support whichever empire ruled them at the time ) it became apparent that the tithe payment system needed to be expanded somewhat. Thus Income Tax amongst other options.

Also debt in the form of borrowing from banks (of one sort or another) to pay for the wars and the technology to fight them successfully.

When the options to repay the debts based on reparations or simply grabbing the trade and overseas operations for mining gold and other valuable metals from defeated adversaries, were outstripped by the cost of the conflict and the future developments, in mostly military terms, to maintain superiority, the idea of inflation became attractive. So long one's debt load was at a low interest rate and one's earnings potential at a higher rate the real current cost of covering the debt over 20 years or whatever the term would decrease.

This, of course, is now the entire basis of the economy in most of the world. Effectively one giant Ponzi scheme - especially Pension plans whether private or State.

So, looking back, yes the USA is, in effect, bankrupt in that if all of it's debts were called in they could not readily pay them off. But that could be said of almost everywhere. Indeed even countries (or regimes) which appear to "own" large quantities of valuable mineral rights or oil deposits on which their wealth is based are only wealthy whilst there is a (genuinely) healthy market for the products they own or can control.

It was always thus. And still times change. Often things change faster than the controlling society wish to recognise or faster than it can deal with even if people do see what is coming.

The UK seems to have sold off assets in recent decades, presumably on the basis that if it is fixed infrastructure in the UK it's unlikely to be removed (but could be allowed to fall into disrepair) or if it is "technology" it is best to sell off while it is still relevant given how quickly technology fashion can change.

I suspect there is not much more to sell off.

Maybe the NHS but I cannot see that anyone would want it.

So the possible methods of supporting the long term debt bubble and pensions promises seem to be very limited. It seems likely that this also applies to the EU, in some places more than others at the moment.

And there are signs that China, even as it stands now, has similar problems which would only be made worse if the world that relies upon it to make stuff or fund stuff buys less or needs more help to support pre-existing investment.

The next few years could be very interesting.