So does that mean its non negotiable as far as TTIP is concerned as well because I haven't heard that the US is opening up its borders to Europe?
Or vice-versa.
So what?
So it means the EU is quite willing to enter into trade agreements with sovereign nations that do not involve free movement of Labour. In which case do please explain why they would not be willing to discuss such an arrangement with a sovereign UK (and as UKIP has made clear one outside the EEA/EFTA if such organisations still demand free movement of labour)..
The idea that the EU would want to impose free movement on a sovereign nation outside the EEA/EU (until the Swiss quota scenario is resolved its unclear what the status is in EFTA) seems somewhat bizarre anyway. Why would the EU want to readily supply supposedly cheap labour or quality skills to a competitor nation as a generic practice?
Regardless of anything what people like Nabavi fail to mention is that we import more from eu countries than we export to them. If we come out it is more to their advantage to continue to trade with us than it is ours. That to me as least says that we have an advantage in negotiating the relationship we want
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
So does that mean its non negotiable as far as TTIP is concerned as well because I haven't heard that the US is opening up its borders to Europe?
Or vice-versa.
So what?
So it means the EU is quite willing to enter into trade agreements with sovereign nations that do not involve free movement of Labour. In which case do please explain why they would not be willing to discuss such an arrangement with a sovereign UK (and as UKIP has made clear one outside the EEA/EFTA if such organisations still demand free movement of labour)..
The idea that the EU would want to impose free movement on a sovereign nation outside the EEA/EU (until the Swiss quota scenario is resolved its unclear what the status is in EFTA) seems somewhat bizarre anyway. Why would the EU want to readily supply supposedly cheap labour or quality skills to a competitor nation as a generic practice?
Regardless of anything what people like Nabavi fail to mention is that we import more from eu countries than we export to them. If we come out it is more to their advantage to continue to trade with us than it is ours. That to me as least says that we have an advantage in negotiating the relationship we want
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
Well indeed some of us have been trying to work that out for decades. Personally I have come to the conclusion that it is an exercise in glorious narcissistic vanity for the European political elite with a dash of megalomania on the side for good measure. After what it has done to Greece it can be little else.
Sounds like we're of like mind. I hope that's a good thing :-)
There is a game-theoretic sense in which exit is a repeated game for the EU but a once-off game for the UK. Whereas the UK would suffer little reputational harm from the negotiations themselves after already announcing its desire to repudiate the various treaties, the EU certainly could. If costs of exit proved to be low, it would eventually be rational for every country to exit when circumstances were right. Therefore, in so far as EU electorates and countries want to keep the union, they would negotiate precedents that give EU membership meaningful benefits.
That sounds like John Forbes Nash Jr and his non-cooperative game theory
There is a game-theoretic sense in which exit is a repeated game for the EU but a once-off game for the UK. Whereas the UK would suffer little reputational harm from the negotiations themselves after already announcing its desire to repudiate the various treaties, the EU certainly could. If costs of exit proved to be low, it would eventually be rational for every country to exit when circumstances were right. Therefore, in so far as EU electorates and countries want to keep the union, they would negotiate precedents that give EU membership meaningful benefits.
Well no because most EU countries actually benefit far more for being members of the EU than the UK does. Part of our desire to leave is that there are no sufficiently good reasons to stay. Germany on the other hand benefits by seeing its currency kept at competitive levels and most other members are net recipients of funds therefore why would they want to leave?
The UK historically has always been the awkward fit in the EU. We have never taken on board the primary aims of the institution and by staying are probably increasingly becoming more of a hindrance to it's goals than anything else. Whilst I can see the deterrent argument, I do not think it will be valid for the UK. We are a problem for Brussels and as such one they will probably likely be happy to get rid of. Why then would they be awkward about our departure?
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
While it is true that we elect representatives to govern us I have a feeling that they are soon house trained by their permanent secretaries. How else do you explain the policies that resurface time and again such as IMP no matter who is in charge.
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
Why do you make it so easy for us to prove what a fool you are? From the department that George Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer dontcha know) is in charge of::
Date: 10 October 2014
In August 2014 the value of imports fell to £15.9bn, while exports also fell to £10.7bn, compared with last month. The difference between EU imports and exports (the trade gap) has decreased to £5.2bn.
Check the graph out. The balance of trade has been in deficit for over a year now......
The overall current account has been in deficit with the EU every year since 1984. And was also every year before 1984 right back to when we joined. Overall (both EU and non EU) it reached a record £72.4 billion in 2013. But our current account deficit with the EU was a huge £102.3 million. That means that were it not for trade with the EU we would be in a comfortable balance of payments surplus overall to the tune of £30 billion.
To say that Eurofanatics like Flightpath are being dishonest with the numbers would be an understatement. In terms of overall current account balance our membership of the EU has been and is an unmitigated disaster.
There is a game-theoretic sense in which exit is a repeated game for the EU but a once-off game for the UK. Whereas the UK would suffer little reputational harm from the negotiations themselves after already announcing its desire to repudiate the various treaties, the EU certainly could. If costs of exit proved to be low, it would eventually be rational for every country to exit when circumstances were right. Therefore, in so far as EU electorates and countries want to keep the union, they would negotiate precedents that give EU membership meaningful benefits.
Well no because most EU countries actually benefit far more for being members of the EU than the UK does. Part of our desire to leave is that there are no sufficiently good reasons to stay. Germany on the other hand benefits by seeing its currency kept at competitive levels and most other members are net recipients of funds therefore why would they want to leave?
The UK historically has always been the awkward fit in the EU. We have never taken on board the primary aims of the institution and by staying are probably increasingly becoming more of a hindrance to it's goals than anything else. Whilst I can see the deterrent argument, I do not think it will be valid for the UK. We are a problem for Brussels and as such one they will probably likely be happy to get rid of. Why then would they be awkward about our departure?
Three letters - CAP.
As a kid in the 60s I lived in Spain. On visiting southern Spain in 2004 I was amazed how many roads, infrastructure, buildings and even bullrings had been built, with EU money. It occurred to me that the UK contrasted sharply with this.
Why do you make it so easy for us to prove what a fool you are? From the department that George Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer dontcha know) is in charge of::
Date: 10 October 2014
In August 2014 the value of imports fell to £15.9bn, while exports also fell to £10.7bn, compared with last month. The difference between EU imports and exports (the trade gap) has decreased to £5.2bn.
Check the graph out. The balance of trade has been in deficit for over a year now......
The overall current account has been in deficit with the EU every year since 1984. And was also every year before 1984 right back to when we joined. Overall (both EU and non EU) it reached a record £72.4 billion in 2013. But our current account deficit with the EU was a huge £102.3 million. That means that were it not for trade with the EU we would be in a comfortable balance of payments surplus overall to the tune of £30 billion.
To say that Eurofanatics like Flightpath are being dishonest with the numbers would be an understatement. In terms of overall current account balance our membership of the EU has been and is an unmitigated disaster.
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
While it is true that we elect representatives to govern us I have a feeling that they are soon house trained by their permanent secretaries. How else do you explain the policies that resurface time and again such as IMP no matter who is in charge.
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
While it is true that we elect representatives to govern us I have a feeling that they are soon house trained by their permanent secretaries. How else do you explain the policies that resurface time and again such as IMP no matter who is in charge.
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
The 'Sir Humphrey' effect?
Indeed. I believe the quote from Mrs Thatcher was ""its clearly-observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power has given me hours of pure joy.""
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
While it is true that we elect representatives to govern us I have a feeling that they are soon house trained by their permanent secretaries. How else do you explain the policies that resurface time and again such as IMP no matter who is in charge.
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
The 'Sir Humphrey' effect?
Indeed. I believe the quote from Mrs Thatcher was ""its clearly-observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power has given me hours of pure joy.""
Indeed, the idea that the EU will make all sorts of bizarre, self destructive and unreasonable demands during withdrawal negotiations is amongst the most ridiculous pieces of scaremongering yet devised by the pro-European lobby.
So you are on record as saying that the EU is NOT bizarre, self-destructive and unreasonable?
Not when its acting in its own self interest it usually isn't (i.e. furthering ever closer union and continental domination). When its dealing with others interests (such as the UK's) then definitely it is. There is a very big difference.
So, in essence what you are saying is that in its own self interest it isn't, but in its members individual interest it is. If it's not operating in its members interests then what is it for?
It is for the furtherance of the aims of the brussels bureaucracy just as westminster is the vehicle for the furtherance of the aims of the whitehall bureucrats (sic)
Whatever shortcomings the Westminster operation may have (we don't have time for that discussion) at least it is wholly democratic in terms of the HOC. Not so much for the Brussels / Strassburg operation.
While it is true that we elect representatives to govern us I have a feeling that they are soon house trained by their permanent secretaries. How else do you explain the policies that resurface time and again such as IMP no matter who is in charge.
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
The other possibility here is that the policies that both sound good to the voters and work well in practice have mostly already been done, so most of the policies politicians run for election on are sound-good work-badly ideas that would blow up in the face of any politician foolish enough to actually implement them.
Why then would they be awkward about our departure?
I can't imagine the other net contributors being overjoyed about having to pick up the slack were the EU to lose our subscription payments. Similarly there would be at least be a suspicion amongst the net receivers that they might have to put up with less if the UK left because the other net contributors would find excuses not to increase their payments.
Given the strong unionist/No feelings in Edinburgh and the "Yes" feeling in Glasgow I think the SNP could outperform the Scottish uniform swing in Glasgow by quite some margin but flop perhaps in Edinburgh (Comparatively) which will probably mean Labour's seats are safe enough there. (North Leith, Edi SW safer than Glasgow East, Glasgow South)
If Edinburgh North and eith was just Edinburgh Leith then that would be a nailed on racing cert for a SNP gain. The North part swings it back to Labour though.
EN&L was 40% Yes, according to people at the count if it had be the N&L Scottish parliament area (which takes a chunk out of the 47% voting Edinburgh East and has a big chunk less of the posher parts of Edinburgh then it would have been a Yes vote.
Depending on what Shadsy offers I may still be taking a speculative SNP punt on EN&L
Comments
The UK historically has always been the awkward fit in the EU. We have never taken on board the primary aims of the institution and by staying are probably increasingly becoming more of a hindrance to it's goals than anything else. Whilst I can see the deterrent argument, I do not think it will be valid for the UK. We are a problem for Brussels and as such one they will probably likely be happy to get rid of. Why then would they be awkward about our departure?
At work my boss is in charge but his edicts are often constructively misinterpreted to prevent undesirable outcomes for our business. Likewise we ensure that the idea's he comes up with originate from us with much show of "What a brilliant idea" when he brings them back to us. Should we do it? No not in an ideal world but its the way a lot of workplaces are.
To say that Eurofanatics like Flightpath are being dishonest with the numbers would be an understatement. In terms of overall current account balance our membership of the EU has been and is an unmitigated disaster.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_382948.pdf
As a kid in the 60s I lived in Spain. On visiting southern Spain in 2004 I was amazed how many roads, infrastructure, buildings and even bullrings had been built, with EU money. It occurred to me that the UK contrasted sharply with this.
EN&L was 40% Yes, according to people at the count if it had be the N&L Scottish parliament area (which takes a chunk out of the 47% voting Edinburgh East and has a big chunk less of the posher parts of Edinburgh then it would have been a Yes vote.
Depending on what Shadsy offers I may still be taking a speculative SNP punt on EN&L