I'm really not following you, and it doesn't seem you addressed the issue.
Difference between FTA and single market (UK and EU): hugely important Difference between no FTA and FTA (Germany/UK and China): not very important
How do you resolve these contradictory comments?
Well, firstly Europe is much more important to us than China is. OK, that might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg point, but it's true nonetheless. Secondly, China isn't particularly interested in the UK, since we are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, but it is interested in access to the European market which is far too big for it to ignore. The whole economic logic of free trade is based on maximising total trade across as wide an area as possible; the UK would be much more attractive to China for inward investment as part of the EU than by itself. The latter points means that the EU is a better unit to carry out free trade negotiations than the UK by itself.
In fact the record of the EU on this is very good. The WTO in particular has gradually been dismantling barriers around the world, and the EU has been part of that. It's not often that I praise Labour politicians (!), but Peter Mandelson deserves some of the credit for that. I think that remaining in the EU and helping to push them towards further progress is a win-win for everyone.
Of course, if the EU retreats into protectionism, which is certainly a risk, then that would be a different matter. The debate is partly about the direction it is going to take over the next few years.
my masterplan for a fully independent City of London (one corporation, one vote)
That show you are a dangerous radical EiT. The suggestion that Goldman Sachs should have no more votes than any other corporation is outrageous.
I think companies still get to vote in Corporation elections, right?
And partners in firms, but not directors of firms or LLPs.
Come on, Mr. Charles, I am sure you were taught this stuff with your mother's milk. For ward elections registerd residents can vote, so can sole traders and equity partners, businesses can nominate electors (the number of electors the get depends on the size of their workforce). Real power, however, as I am sure you know full well, lies in the Livery Companies with their networks.
my masterplan for a fully independent City of London (one corporation, one vote)
That show you are a dangerous radical EiT. The suggestion that Goldman Sachs should have no more votes than any other corporation is outrageous.
I think companies still get to vote in Corporation elections, right?
And partners in firms, but not directors of firms or LLPs.
Come on, Mr. Charles, I am sure you were taught this stuff with your mother's milk. For ward elections registerd residents can vote, so can sole traders and equity partners, businesses can nominate electors (the number of electors the get depends on the size of their workforce). Real power, however, as I am sure you know full well, lies in the Livery Companies with their networks.
Indeed - businesses get a vote in their own right as well. But mine was a limited answer to the GS point (who get multiple votes depending on the rates that they pay).
As for the Livery Companies... well I am a Goldsmith... the City Churches have some influence as well (Warden and Sidesman).
But we haven't had a Lord Mayor in the family since the 60s... the Alderman who was the obvious person for me to take over from behaved rather badly.
There's no chance of a renegotiation or a new treaty before 2017. So a referendum would be based on pretty much the status quo - apart from one massive gamechanging difference: The likelihood of getting to 2017 without another recession/banking crisis/credit meltdown/stockmarket crash is pretty low. We're going to find out just how 'fixed' the Eurozone is in the next couple of years. (and just how 'fixed' the UK welfare state is).
There seems a pretty broad consensus now that there won't be a bankable signed treaty to vote on in 2017. Let's assume that's the case for a moment. Could a Conservative supporter explain what Cameron would do? I'm genuinely unsure of his intentions. He could: 1. Hold a referendum on what he WANTS from the negotiations. If the vote is yes, we agree that's what we want, he goes into the talks with a stronger hand. If the vote is no, we don't agree to those proposals, what then? And would there then be another referendum after the actual Treaty was concluded? 2. Hold a referendum on what he THINKS he'll get in a treaty. If the vote is yes, and such a treaty follows in due course, more or less, do we have another referendum or is that it? If the vote is no, do we then withdraw, even though we're not sure he was right about the prospects? 3. Hold a referendum on whether to stay in the EU as it is now, promising to work for reform but not waiting to see if he gets it. If we vote yes, we stay in. Would we then have another referendum after a treaty? If we vote no, we leave. 4. Say er, sorry, but we're not ready yet, I'll get back to you with the referendum when the treaty's finalised.
@Nick - I don't understand the difficulty. He will come back with what he has, which may indeed be a mixture of the certain and the less certain. The referendum will then be held, and the people will decide. If they don't trust the assurances of our EU friends, they'll be more inclined to vote to leave. Our EU friends will have to take this factor into account in judging what they offer and how they offer it.
Of course it would be nice to have absolute certainty, but that's life: at some point, you have to decide, based on a view on how things will pan out.
Bear in mind that those arguing for NOT renegotiating and not leaving the EU are also reliant on judging how the EU might develop in future, so it's not an asymmetrical problem.
Edit: What is 100% certain is that there won't be a delay, barring some major war or other catastrophe. The referendum will happen in 2017, if the Conservatives are in power. If Cameron tried to renege on that, he'd be pushed out within days.
"... the City Churches have some influence as well ..."
And doesn't each company have its own church?
As for the Lord Mayor's job, I hear tell that these days it is so full-time that it really has to be an end of career, lap of honour. Even being master of one's own company seems to be something youngish and active chaps want to duck these days because of the time commitment it demands.
P.S. When my eyes started going seriously wonky one of my clients, a Grocer, sent me a picture postcard to cheer me up. The picture was a reproduction of a Bateman cartoon, "The man who asked for a second helping at a City company dinner". Made me laugh like a drain. If you haven't seen it I'll scan it in and send it to you.
There's no chance of a renegotiation or a new treaty before 2017. So a referendum would be based on pretty much the status quo - apart from one massive gamechanging difference: The likelihood of getting to 2017 without another recession/banking crisis/credit meltdown/stockmarket crash is pretty low. We're going to find out just how 'fixed' the Eurozone is in the next couple of years. (and just how 'fixed' the UK welfare state is).
There seems a pretty broad consensus now that there won't be a bankable signed treaty to vote on in 2017. Let's assume that's the case for a moment. Could a Conservative supporter explain what Cameron would do? I'm genuinely unsure of his intentions. He could: 1. Hold a referendum on what he WANTS from the negotiations. If the vote is yes, we agree that's what we want, he goes into the talks with a stronger hand. If the vote is no, we don't agree to those proposals, what then? And would there then be another referendum after the actual Treaty was concluded? 2. Hold a referendum on what he THINKS he'll get in a treaty. If the vote is yes, and such a treaty follows in due course, more or less, do we have another referendum or is that it? If the vote is no, do we then withdraw, even though we're not sure he was right about the prospects? 3. Hold a referendum on whether to stay in the EU as it is now, promising to work for reform but not waiting to see if he gets it. If we vote yes, we stay in. Would we then have another referendum after a treaty? If we vote no, we leave. 4. Say er, sorry, but we're not ready yet, I'll get back to you with the referendum when the treaty's finalised.
The situation is clouded by references to a referendum on "the Lisbon Treaty" but I assume what was meant was an in/out question, the answer to which would determine whether we signed the treaty or not. I don't think "should this country accede to Lisbon yes/no would work, because the press would have a field day demonstrating that only .03 % of the population knew what the Lisbon Treaty was or did.
So you can't ask a question on what Cameron wants, thinks or hopes for. The question always has to be in/out. He can of course tell the country all about what he wants, thinks or hopes for, dependent on the actual status of negotiations with the EU, in the course of the campaign.
The situation of a list of promises might be helpful for the BOO group. If you had a referendum on a final treaty, the IN side might win, even though no treaty is ever final and things could still be integrated via non-treaty means. But it would still likely mean that there couldn' t be another referendum for 20 years.
However, if there's a vote on a piece of paper, the IN side wins, but then the following treaty didn't happen properly, it would be a very good environment for OUT to agitate for another vote, and it would be a vote where the EU looks very untrustworthy.
I'm really not following you, and it doesn't seem you addressed the issue.
Difference between FTA and single market (UK and EU): hugely important Difference between no FTA and FTA (Germany/UK and China): not very important
How do you resolve these contradictory comments?
Well, firstly Europe is much more important to us than China is.
This is the only bit in your post which actually addresses the inconsistency I pointed to. So let me ask two further questions:
- Ignoring who the agreement is with, if average global tariff barriers are a 0, and a complete single market is a 100, where would you place a modern goods and services (a la EU-Korea) free trade agreement on the scale? I would put it at about an 85.
- You say trade with China is not as important as with the EU. But how would trade with India AND China rate? What about with USA, Canada, India and China? What combination of markets would you think have to be important enough to match the EU? How about in 15-20 years time?
OK, that might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg point, but it's true nonetheless. Secondly, China isn't particularly interested in the UK, since we are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, but it is interested in access to the European market which is far too big for it to ignore. The whole economic logic of free trade is based on maximising total trade across as wide an area as possible; the UK would be much more attractive to China for inward investment as part of the EU than by itself. The latter points means that the EU is a better unit to carry out free trade negotiations than the UK by itself.
This paragraph doesn't actually address the contradictory comments point, so its a separate argument. But anyway, obviously the UK alone isn't as interesting to China as the whole EU is. But outside the EU, it wouldn't be just the UK a Chinese company investing in the UK would look at - it would be the UK plus everyone the have free trade with. That's because anything produced by a Chinese company in the UK could be exported to anyone we have free trade with. This point is thus just comes back to the free trade one, so I find it misleading when EU types try to claim it as a separate argument.
There's also the fact that negotiating for the whole EU means you need to cater for 27 countries with their own veto points and special interests that we don't need to worry about when it's just the UK.
Comments
In fact the record of the EU on this is very good. The WTO in particular has gradually been dismantling barriers around the world, and the EU has been part of that. It's not often that I praise Labour politicians (!), but Peter Mandelson deserves some of the credit for that. I think that remaining in the EU and helping to push them towards further progress is a win-win for everyone.
Of course, if the EU retreats into protectionism, which is certainly a risk, then that would be a different matter. The debate is partly about the direction it is going to take over the next few years.
As for the Livery Companies... well I am a Goldsmith... the City Churches have some influence as well (Warden and Sidesman).
But we haven't had a Lord Mayor in the family since the 60s... the Alderman who was the obvious person for me to take over from behaved rather badly.
1. Hold a referendum on what he WANTS from the negotiations. If the vote is yes, we agree that's what we want, he goes into the talks with a stronger hand. If the vote is no, we don't agree to those proposals, what then? And would there then be another referendum after the actual Treaty was concluded?
2. Hold a referendum on what he THINKS he'll get in a treaty. If the vote is yes, and such a treaty follows in due course, more or less, do we have another referendum or is that it? If the vote is no, do we then withdraw, even though we're not sure he was right about the prospects?
3. Hold a referendum on whether to stay in the EU as it is now, promising to work for reform but not waiting to see if he gets it. If we vote yes, we stay in. Would we then have another referendum after a treaty? If we vote no, we leave.
4. Say er, sorry, but we're not ready yet, I'll get back to you with the referendum when the treaty's finalised.
Which is it?
Of course it would be nice to have absolute certainty, but that's life: at some point, you have to decide, based on a view on how things will pan out.
Bear in mind that those arguing for NOT renegotiating and not leaving the EU are also reliant on judging how the EU might develop in future, so it's not an asymmetrical problem.
Edit: What is 100% certain is that there won't be a delay, barring some major war or other catastrophe. The referendum will happen in 2017, if the Conservatives are in power. If Cameron tried to renege on that, he'd be pushed out within days.
I would have put money on that
"... the City Churches have some influence as well ..."
And doesn't each company have its own church?
As for the Lord Mayor's job, I hear tell that these days it is so full-time that it really has to be an end of career, lap of honour. Even being master of one's own company seems to be something youngish and active chaps want to duck these days because of the time commitment it demands.
P.S. When my eyes started going seriously wonky one of my clients, a Grocer, sent me a picture postcard to cheer me up. The picture was a reproduction of a Bateman cartoon, "The man who asked for a second helping at a City company dinner". Made me laugh like a drain. If you haven't seen it I'll scan it in and send it to you.
The situation is clouded by references to a referendum on "the Lisbon Treaty" but I assume what was meant was an in/out question, the answer to which would determine whether we signed the treaty or not. I don't think "should this country accede to Lisbon yes/no would work, because the press would have a field day demonstrating that only .03 % of the population knew what the Lisbon Treaty was or did.
So you can't ask a question on what Cameron wants, thinks or hopes for. The question always has to be in/out. He can of course tell the country all about what he wants, thinks or hopes for, dependent on the actual status of negotiations with the EU, in the course of the campaign.
However, if there's a vote on a piece of paper, the IN side wins, but then the following treaty didn't happen properly, it would be a very good environment for OUT to agitate for another vote, and it would be a vote where the EU looks very untrustworthy.
- Ignoring who the agreement is with, if average global tariff barriers are a 0, and a complete single market is a 100, where would you place a modern goods and services (a la EU-Korea) free trade agreement on the scale? I would put it at about an 85.
- You say trade with China is not as important as with the EU. But how would trade with India AND China rate? What about with USA, Canada, India and China? What combination of markets would you think have to be important enough to match the EU? How about in 15-20 years time? This paragraph doesn't actually address the contradictory comments point, so its a separate argument. But anyway, obviously the UK alone isn't as interesting to China as the whole EU is. But outside the EU, it wouldn't be just the UK a Chinese company investing in the UK would look at - it would be the UK plus everyone the have free trade with. That's because anything produced by a Chinese company in the UK could be exported to anyone we have free trade with. This point is thus just comes back to the free trade one, so I find it misleading when EU types try to claim it as a separate argument.
There's also the fact that negotiating for the whole EU means you need to cater for 27 countries with their own veto points and special interests that we don't need to worry about when it's just the UK.