It is a very good article, but I don't know enough to judge how accurate it is, and I have read some criticisms of it.
That said if the article is broadly correct the implication is really awful, the west will be fighting (because there sure as hell won't be much dialogue) ISIS or ISIS-like groups for a very long time.
The irony is that the UK infrastructure budget doesn't pay for bridges or roads in Scotland. As things stand, the stickers will go on some Broadband street furniture in Inverness.
'Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
They're going to have to address that nationally - this is a Black Swan moment for Labour. Creepy Jim and Deputy Dug must be finding it really difficult to keep their heads out the oven without this sort of stuff on top of the tax on Scottish grannies for English students.
The irony is that the UK infrastructure budget doesn't pay for bridges or roads in Scotland. As things stand, the stickers will go on some Broadband street furniture in Inverness.
Scotland is in the UK. UK money is spent by UK authorities. English MPs do not have a say on how UK money is spent in Scotland. Scottish MPs do have a say on how UK money is spent in England.
What the hell? That doesn't even make sense, they just want to rename the licence fee to universal levy. What a bunch of, well, a word I won't say on this board.
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Blamist or realist? UKIP are in favour of controlled immigration. Something which the vast majority of the countries in the world have.
The irony is that the UK infrastructure budget doesn't pay for bridges or roads in Scotland. As things stand, the stickers will go on some Broadband street furniture in Inverness.
Scotland is in the UK. UK money is spent by UK authorities. English MPs do not have a say on how UK money is spent in Scotland. Scottish MPs do have a say on how UK money is spent in England.
Perhaps you haven't read or haven't understood the proposal.
The IUCN Red List classified CR ginger rodent is planning that spending from the UK Infrastructure Budget is to be labelled with a "Funded by UK Government" logo. Only this and specifically this.
As that is pretty much spent in London (with the odd exception like HS2) and virtually none of it spent in Scotland, the while thing (already making an impact on Social Media) will backfire as an attempt to gerrymander Scottish public opinion.
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Blamist or realist? UKIP are in favour of controlled immigration. Something which the vast majority of the countries in the world have.
UKIP want to leave the EU and significantly reduce immigration.
Both will have a very significant negative effect on the economy. As living standards plummet and the economy tanks, the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies, in the case of UKIP that means from Reducing Immigration, to Eliminating Immigration to Expelling recent Immigrants, to expelling long resident Immigrants.
There is nothing hard to understand about this.
Very few developed countries have as low a net migration rate as the UK. Australia and their "wonderful points based" system has a net migration rate per 1000 population over twice as high as the UK.
Mr Gift ... ''I'd be interested to know why from your perspective European workers should get preferential immigration treatment over the rest of the world. ''
Because UK citizens get the same rights to work and settle in the EU. We as a country get the right to win and host inward investment into the EU. And when that inward investment generates jobs then investors know that workers will be available.
Who is talking about 'preferential? In reality for example large numbers of US Canadian Australian SA and NZ citizens come and work in the UK. Grow up and realise what 'trade deals' are all about and where all the world's 'trade deals' are going'.
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Blamist or realist? UKIP are in favour of controlled immigration. Something which the vast majority of the countries in the world have.
UKIP want to leave the EU and significantly reduce immigration.
Both will have a very significant negative effect on the economy. As living standards plummet and the economy tanks, the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies, in the case of UKIP that means from Reducing Immigration, to Eliminating Immigration to Expelling recent Immigrants, to expelling long resident Immigrants.
There is nothing hard to understand about this.
Very few developed countries have as low a net migration rate as the UK. Australia and their "wonderful points based" system has a net migration rate per 1000 population over twice as high as the UK.
More lunatic rantings from Dair. A man who never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion you are physically incapable of understanding either basic figures or basic logic.
Jihadi John's father 'a bully and a collaborator with Saddam': Family fled to Britain from Kuwait after he was accused of helping forces during Iraqi invasion
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
Do you still think the house of Windsor used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Goethe?
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Blamist or realist? UKIP are in favour of controlled immigration. Something which the vast majority of the countries in the world have.
UKIP want to leave the EU and significantly reduce immigration.
Both will have a very significant negative effect on the economy. As living standards plummet and the economy tanks, the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies, in the case of UKIP that means from Reducing Immigration, to Eliminating Immigration to Expelling recent Immigrants, to expelling long resident Immigrants.
There is nothing hard to understand about this.
Very few developed countries have as low a net migration rate as the UK. Australia and their "wonderful points based" system has a net migration rate per 1000 population over twice as high as the UK.
More lunatic rantings from Dair. A man who never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion you are physically incapable of understanding either basic figures or basic logic.
As it seems most of you Kippers can't form a coherent argument, it's not surprising to see you play the man instead.
It does seem bizarre that the rantings of UKIP have actually succeeded in persuading so many people that trade is a bad thing. In the UK. A country whose entire place in the world was built as a trading nation. Who built unsurpassed wealth based entirely on trade.
But please, continue to rant at history and tilt at windmills. Your responses continue to amuse.
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
Do you still think the house of Windsor used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Goethe?
Although I don't agree with Dair's republican sentiments, he wasn't wrong:
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
Do you still think the house of Windsor used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Goethe?
Although I don't agree with Dair's republican sentiments, he wasn't wrong:
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."
Not only that but the instrument used was a Royal Proclamation which has dubious (if any) legitimacy in the law of my country.
More lunatic rantings from Dair. A man who never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion you are physically incapable of understanding either basic figures or basic logic.
As it seems most of you Kippers can't form a coherent argument, it's not surprising to see you play the man instead.
It does seem bizarre that the rantings of UKIP have actually succeeded in persuading so many people that trade is a bad thing. In the UK. A country whose entire place in the world was built as a trading nation. Who built unsurpassed wealth based entirely on trade.
But please, continue to rant at history and tilt at windmills. Your responses continue to amuse.
Not at all. I tried explaining to you how your claims were wrong and guess what, you went silent and refused to answer. Robert also pointed out how wrong you were and not a word did we hear in response.
You continue to 'play the man' as you call it, making wild and unfounded claims or simply plucking figures out of the air which bear no relation to reality. And when challenged about it you either run away or answer with another wild rant.
Your understanding of history, economics, the EU and just about every other subject you post on is so fundamentally flawed or simply non existent that once we have pointed out your idiocy and explained where you are wrong there is nothing much left to do other than laugh at you.
I look forward to your next attempt to rationalise your lunacy after which I will again point out how utterly wrong you are and give you the correct figures for you to ignore... again.
The irony is that the UK infrastructure budget doesn't pay for bridges or roads in Scotland. As things stand, the stickers will go on some Broadband street furniture in Inverness.
Scotland is in the UK. UK money is spent by UK authorities. English MPs do not have a say on how UK money is spent in Scotland. Scottish MPs do have a say on how UK money is spent in England.
Perhaps you haven't read or haven't understood the proposal.
The IUCN Red List classified CR ginger rodent is planning that spending from the UK Infrastructure Budget is to be labelled with a "Funded by UK Government" logo. Only this and specifically this.
As that is pretty much spent in London (with the odd exception like HS2) and virtually none of it spent in Scotland, the while thing (already making an impact on Social Media) will backfire as an attempt to gerrymander Scottish public opinion.
The UK infrastructure budget is spent on, and to link, UK citizens, wherever they are. There are 5.3 million UK citizens in Scotland. There are about 5.9 million UK citizens in the West Midlands... Oh Social Media...?? It could be that 'Danny' has remembered ... https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12201 ''The Leader of Glasgow City Council has today (3 July 2014) welcomed the news that the UK Government will tomorrow announce a City Deal worth £1.13billion for the Glasgow City Region.'' ''Councillor Gordon Matheson, Leader of Glasgow City Council, said: "This is fantastic news for Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. It will help us to move to the next level in terms of economic growth for the City Region. We have been working closely together with the UK Government on this project for some time, and I am delighted to say it has borne fruit. '' '' ''The City Deal will be used to fund major infrastructure projects, drive innovation and growth through the support of key sectors such as life sciences, and address challenges in the local labour market. These projects will allow a programme of work to go ahead which will greatly add to the value of the local economy over the next twenty years. The UK Government will give the City Region £500million in grant funding, and is inviting the Scottish Government to match this. The local authorities involved will borrow a further £130million.''
Not at all. I tried explaining to you how your claims were wrong and guess what, you went silent and refused to answer. Robert also pointed out how wrong you were and not a word did we hear in response.
You continue to 'play the man' as you call it, making wild and unfounded claims or simply plucking figures out of the air which bear no relation to reality. And when challenged about it you either run away or answer with another wild rant.
Your understanding of history, economics, the EU and just about every other subject you post on is so fundamentally flawed or simply non existent that once we have pointed out your idiocy and explained where you are wrong there is nothing much left to do other than laugh at you.
I look forward to your next attempt to rationalise your lunacy after which I will again point out how utterly wrong you are and give you the correct figures for you to ignore... again.
I don't read every post of every thread. But if you want to try and demonstrate why trade is a bad thing and losing out on better, cheaper imported goods while having an open market for exports is a bad thing, please feel free, I always enjoy a good laugh.
Maybe you can also explain how to pay for the current pension time bomb without significant further immigration and how the exchequer will cope with tens of billions of lost revenue from losing immigrant labour's taxes.
Mr Diar I know you like to keep that chip on your shoulder well polished so here is a rag to rub it with - but it comes from Manchester not London I'm afraid.
http://www.agma.gov.uk/gmca/city-deal-announcement/ ''A radical Earnback model where the government has agreed in principle that up to £1.2 billion invested up front in infrastructure improvements by Greater Manchester will be ‘paid back’ to the combined authority as real economic growth is seen. This is the first tax increment finance-style scheme in England outside London. These ‘earned back’ funds will be reinvested in further infrastructure improvements to allow Greater Manchester to reach its economic potential. The first phase of this will include the completion of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund programme, enabling the early implementation of schemes including the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (SEMMMS) and the extension of Metrolink to Trafford Park. ''
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
It's pretty accurate as history shows.
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Blamist or realist? UKIP are in favour of controlled immigration. Something which the vast majority of the countries in the world have.
UKIP want to leave the EU and significantly reduce immigration.
Both will have a very significant negative effect on the economy. As living standards plummet and the economy tanks, the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies, in the case of UKIP that means from Reducing Immigration, to Eliminating Immigration to Expelling recent Immigrants, to expelling long resident Immigrants.
There is nothing hard to understand about this.
Very few developed countries have as low a net migration rate as the UK. Australia and their "wonderful points based" system has a net migration rate per 1000 population over twice as high as the UK.
More lunatic rantings from Dair. A man who never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion you are physically incapable of understanding either basic figures or basic logic.
As it seems most of you Kippers can't form a coherent argument, it's not surprising to see you play the man instead.
It does seem bizarre that the rantings of UKIP have actually succeeded in persuading so many people that trade is a bad thing. In the UK. A country whose entire place in the world was built as a trading nation. Who built unsurpassed wealth based entirely on trade.
But please, continue to rant at history and tilt at windmills. Your responses continue to amuse.
It was a very common statement during the indyref that countries that separated (Czech and Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan etc) all saw a rapid drop off in trade between their former parts. It does seem quite likely that a departure from the EU would see a gradual decrease in UK/EU trade.
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
Not at all. I tried explaining to you how your claims were wrong and guess what, you went silent and refused to answer. Robert also pointed out how wrong you were and not a word did we hear in response.
You continue to 'play the man' as you call it, making wild and unfounded claims or simply plucking figures out of the air which bear no relation to reality. And when challenged about it you either run away or answer with another wild rant.
Your understanding of history, economics, the EU and just about every other subject you post on is so fundamentally flawed or simply non existent that once we have pointed out your idiocy and explained where you are wrong there is nothing much left to do other than laugh at you.
I look forward to your next attempt to rationalise your lunacy after which I will again point out how utterly wrong you are and give you the correct figures for you to ignore... again.
I don't read every post of every thread. But if you want to try and demonstrate why trade is a bad thing and losing out on better, cheaper imported goods while having an open market for exports is a bad thing, please feel free, I always enjoy a good laugh.
Maybe you can also explain how to pay for the current pension time bomb without significant further immigration and how the exchequer will cope with tens of billions of lost revenue from losing immigrant labour's taxes.
As Scotland has a more rapidly ageing population, then perhaps immigration their would be preferable to SE England and London, the youngest parts of the UK.
Bill Emmott who has produced the pro-EU BBC4 propaganda piece is getting savaged on Newsnight. Sitting there smirking whilst the guests take his program to pieces.
Not at all. I tried explaining to you how your claims were wrong and guess what, you went silent and refused to answer. Robert also pointed out how wrong you were and not a word did we hear in response.
You continue to 'play the man' as you call it, making wild and unfounded claims or simply plucking figures out of the air which bear no relation to reality. And when challenged about it you either run away or answer with another wild rant.
Your understanding of history, economics, the EU and just about every other subject you post on is so fundamentally flawed or simply non existent that once we have pointed out your idiocy and explained where you are wrong there is nothing much left to do other than laugh at you.
I look forward to your next attempt to rationalise your lunacy after which I will again point out how utterly wrong you are and give you the correct figures for you to ignore... again.
I don't read every post of every thread. But if you want to try and demonstrate why trade is a bad thing and losing out on better, cheaper imported goods while having an open market for exports is a bad thing, please feel free, I always enjoy a good laugh.
Maybe you can also explain how to pay for the current pension time bomb without significant further immigration and how the exchequer will cope with tens of billions of lost revenue from losing immigrant labour's taxes.
Your basic claim that we would lose trade by leaving the EU is a myth. Your claim that it would cost £15 billion to trade with the EU if we were in EFTA is a myth. Your claim that the UK benefits from being stuck in the backward failing market of the EU is a myth.
The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact.
That we can deal with our pension timebomb by importing people is a myth. All it does is kick it down the road a little and make it worse because we then have a larger population needing pension provision.
Every figure you have produced so far - and there have not been many of them amongst the rants - has been wrong. Which is some going when there are so many people on here who have already produced the correct figures.
I short you know nothing and every posting you make proves that more comprehensively.
Now to bed. If you have any further drivel to post I will read it in the morning and then correct you. Again.
UKIP certainly seems to have changed. I used to see them as a free trade, free market organisation, who wanted to leave the EU, not because they didnt like trading with the rest of Europe, but because it inhibited our ability to freely trade with the rest of the world. I used to sympathise quite strongly with that position.
That seems to have changed. The over emphasis on immigration seems to be their mainstay now.
I remember having a long conversation late into the night nearly 10 years ago with a Pakistani friend of mine who revealed how all this stuff was already deeply ingrained into communities in Northern Pakistan and how they wanted nothing more than to live a "pure" Islamic life i.e winding the clock back to the 7th Century based upon complete and utter literate interpretations of the Koran.
At the time, he was very worried for Pakistan as a country, but I don't think he could ever have foresaw what has occurred.
The UK infrastructure budget is spent on, and to link, UK citizens, wherever they are. There are 5.3 million UK citizens in Scotland. There are about 5.9 million UK citizens in the West Midlands... Oh Social Media...?? It could be that 'Danny' has remembered ... https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12201 ''The Leader of Glasgow City Council has today (3 July 2014) welcomed the news that the UK Government will tomorrow announce a City Deal worth £1.13billion for the Glasgow City Region.''
Love the way the real figure of central funding turns out to be less than half the headline number.
BTW City Deals are not funded by the UK Infrastructure Budget, they are funded from a range of budgets including Communities, BIS, CMS and Treasury.
Something like 90% of the UK Infrastructure Budget has been spent historically in London and its surrounds (such things as Crossrail and the new Sewer being major beneficiaries). HS2 might dilute London's share but HS2 is really a pro-London project and doesn't benefit Scotland one jot.
UKIP certainly seems to have changed. I used to see them as a free trade, free market organisation, who wanted to leave the EU, not because they didnt like trading with the rest of Europe, but because it inhibited our ability to freely trade with the rest of the world. I used to sympathise quite strongly with that position.
That seems to have changed. The over emphasis on immigration seems to be their mainstay now.
I think that is a mistake (on their part not yours). I do believe that a points system (but without the hard cap that Robert objects to) is a good way to go. I also believe that decisions about immigration need to be made by the UK not the EU and that those decisions should cover all immigration not just that from outside the EU. But once we have that control back I would probably find myself disagreeing with most of the UKIP posters on here about the nature of and need for migration.
It was a very common statement during the indyref that countries that separated (Czech and Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan etc) all saw a rapid drop off in trade between their former parts. It does seem quite likely that a departure from the EU would see a gradual decrease in UK/EU trade.
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
Your first point is generally correct.
Your second point we already know the answer to. The UK is ALREADY trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. It is not doing particularly well.
Bill Emmott who has produced the pro-EU BBC4 propaganda piece is getting savaged on Newsnight. Sitting there smirking whilst the guests take his program to pieces.
Reckless again speaking a lot of sense... He was impressive on QT as well
Would people really rather have Kelly tolhurst putting the case for eu withdrawal on national television?
It was a very common statement during the indyref that countries that separated (Czech and Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan etc) all saw a rapid drop off in trade between their former parts. It does seem quite likely that a departure from the EU would see a gradual decrease in UK/EU trade.
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
Your first point is generally correct.
Your second point we already know the answer to. The UK is ALREADY trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. It is not doing particularly well.
And yet we have a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world and a massive deficit with the EU.
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
Do you still think the house of Windsor used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Goethe?
Although I don't agree with Dair's republican sentiments, he wasn't wrong:
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."
Missing the point. He thinks the name was Saxe-Coburg-Goethe spelt thus.
UKIP certainly seems to have changed. I used to see them as a free trade, free market organisation, who wanted to leave the EU, not because they didnt like trading with the rest of Europe, but because it inhibited our ability to freely trade with the rest of the world. I used to sympathise quite strongly with that position.
That seems to have changed. The over emphasis on immigration seems to be their mainstay now.
I think that is a mistake (on their part not yours). I do believe that a points system (but without the hard cap that Robert objects to) is a good way to go. I also believe that decisions about immigration need to be made by the UK not the EU and that those decisions should cover all immigration not just that from outside the EU. But once we have that control back I would probably find myself disagreeing with most of the UKIP posters on here about the nature of and need for migration.
Ive always thought that immigration is a bit like salt on your food. A little bit is both healthy and adds a lot of taste, too much however spoils your meal and leads to long term health problems.
Your basic claim that we would lose trade by leaving the EU is a myth. Your claim that it would cost £15 billion to trade with the EU if we were in EFTA is a myth. Your claim that the UK benefits from being stuck in the backward failing market of the EU is a myth.
The cost of membership as an EFTA country would be somewhere between £4bn and £6bn depending on the terms. The figure I used above was off the cuff without wasting time looking it up, it was merely used to demonstrate the nonsense of Kippers that the UK saves all the money it currently pays in EU membership costs.
The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact.
You seem to be living in some bizarre world where the UK economy could replace it's current EU imports with home-production.
Currently the UK imports £6bn worth of food, predominantly from the EU. That will still be £6bn of food imports inside or outside the EU. If the EU desires to impose export tariffs on trade with the UK (and there are a lot of reasons why it might) that cost is going to be much higher.
The same applies for everything else you get from the EU, there may be small benefits in some areas but overall, you're still going to be importing far, far more than you export.
That we can deal with our pension timebomb by importing people is a myth. All it does is kick it down the road a little and make it worse because we then have a larger population needing pension provision.
That's not entirely untrue. However the only way to deal with Entitlements is to have demonstrable examples in other countries. The longer you kick it down the road the more chance you have of persuading the public that the changes are needed without becoming electorally toxic.
Every figure you have produced so far - and there have not been many of them amongst the rants - has been wrong. Which is some going when there are so many people on here who have already produced the correct figures.
Generally I'll look up a figure but occasionally I will go from memory and apologise if I make an error. The only figure you claim that is wrong was one used to demonstrate a principle, the actual value is irrelevant.
Meanwhile you claim the UK will suddenly become an exporting nation when I just debunked it completely in three brief paragraphs. You need to wake up beyond your prejudice about foreigners. It is clouding your judgement.
It was a very common statement during the indyref that countries that separated (Czech and Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan etc) all saw a rapid drop off in trade between their former parts. It does seem quite likely that a departure from the EU would see a gradual decrease in UK/EU trade.
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
Your first point is generally correct.
Your second point we already know the answer to. The UK is ALREADY trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. It is not doing particularly well.
And yet we have a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world and a massive deficit with the EU.
So tell me how that is not going well exactly?
The UK is indeed trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. The problem is that we didn't export a single thing before 1973 so it's all from a standing start. What makes it particularly difficult is that Britons were unable to travel overseas before then. Foreign travel was only invented recently by a thing called Schengen.
Even the Saxe-Coburg-Goethe family were trapped; hence them buying Balmoral in an effort to feel as though they are abroad.
Bill Emmott who has produced the pro-EU BBC4 propaganda piece is getting savaged on Newsnight. Sitting there smirking whilst the guests take his program to pieces.
Reckless again speaking a lot of sense... He was impressive on QT as well
Would people really rather have Kelly tolhurst putting the case for eu withdrawal on national television?
The few videos I have seen of her have been cringeworthy. She is clearly out of her depth and it is beyond me why they havn't replaced her with someone else.
I thought Scotland wasn't supposed to have any air force after Independence. Clearly from the documentary we'd be quite capable of shooting down a plane full of English economic migrants/asylum seekers.
Do you still think the house of Windsor used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Goethe?
Although I don't agree with Dair's republican sentiments, he wasn't wrong:
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."
Missing the point. He thinks the name was Saxe-Coburg-Goethe spelt thus.
The Germans do have a sense of humour after all. The 'Gotha' was a bomber in WW1.
It was a very common statement during the indyref that countries that separated (Czech and Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan and South Sudan etc) all saw a rapid drop off in trade between their former parts. It does seem quite likely that a departure from the EU would see a gradual decrease in UK/EU trade.
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
Your first point is generally correct.
Your second point we already know the answer to. The UK is ALREADY trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. It is not doing particularly well.
And yet we have a balance of payments surplus with the rest of the world and a massive deficit with the EU.
So tell me how that is not going well exactly?
The UK has a long term small BoP deficit with the RoW and a long term huge deficit with the EU. As you have already been told, leaving the EU shifts most of that EU deficit into the RoW column - possibly at a higher cost.
But once we have that control back I would probably find myself disagreeing with most of the UKIP posters on here about the nature of and need for migration.
c'mon PB tories - his vote is there for the taking - he's swinging back!
I recall the Referendum Party "gained" an MP when Sir George Gardiner defected from the Conservatives just before the 1997 election. It didn't stop the Conservatives retaining the seat comfortably so the likelihood is it will be a maverick who won't bring too many supporters with him/her and it probably won't affect the result in the seat much either.
I also remember that in one or two interviews during the general election campaign he referred to the Conservative Party as "we", suggesting that he hadn't defected properly / fully / psychologically.
Currently the UK imports £6bn worth of food, predominantly from the EU. That will still be £6bn of food imports inside or outside the EU. If the EU desires to impose export tariffs on trade with the UK (and there are a lot of reasons why it might) that cost is going to be much higher.
Tendentious supposition unless you can provide a link.
Just as well Labour is rock-solid in Scotland then.....
Tuition cuts ‘a threat to Scots universities’ One of Britain’s most prestigious universities has warned Ed Miliband that plans to cut tuition fees could “threaten its very survival”.
The Labour leader came under fire from the University of St Andrews after announcing plans to slash annual fees by £3,000, if he becomes prime minister at the general election in May. A spokesman for the university, which is 600 years old, said the plan could cause “significant damage” to teaching and research.
Comments
That said if the article is broadly correct the implication is really awful, the west will be fighting (because there sure as hell won't be much dialogue) ISIS or ISIS-like groups for a very long time.
This made me chuckle.
Believe it when I see it...
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/572164944566878208
Whenever a blamist party takes power, once the economy starts to tank due to the initial "moderate" blamist policies, instead of standing up and saying "whoops, guess we were wrong, better rejoin the EU and allow immigrations", they just tighten their blame paradigm and shift it onto "it's the foreigners we let stay, time to kick them out too".
This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Danny Alexander is to set out details of the plan, which would effectively strip banks of the benefit of recent corporation tax cuts, on Monday.
The Treasury Secretary is pushing for it to be included in Chancellor George Osborne's budget later this month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31684503
The IUCN Red List classified CR ginger rodent is planning that spending from the UK Infrastructure Budget is to be labelled with a "Funded by UK Government" logo. Only this and specifically this.
As that is pretty much spent in London (with the odd exception like HS2) and virtually none of it spent in Scotland, the while thing (already making an impact on Social Media) will backfire as an attempt to gerrymander Scottish public opinion.
Both will have a very significant negative effect on the economy. As living standards plummet and the economy tanks, the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies, in the case of UKIP that means from Reducing Immigration, to Eliminating Immigration to Expelling recent Immigrants, to expelling long resident Immigrants.
There is nothing hard to understand about this.
Very few developed countries have as low a net migration rate as the UK. Australia and their "wonderful points based" system has a net migration rate per 1000 population over twice as high as the UK.
The Lib Dems simply appear to have become an irrelevance.
Because UK citizens get the same rights to work and settle in the EU. We as a country get the right to win and host inward investment into the EU. And when that inward investment generates jobs then investors know that workers will be available.
Who is talking about 'preferential? In reality for example large numbers of US Canadian Australian SA and NZ citizens come and work in the UK.
Grow up and realise what 'trade deals' are all about and where all the world's 'trade deals' are going'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974875/Jihadi-John-s-father-bully-collaborator-Saddam-Family-fled-Britain-Kuwait-accused-helping-forces-Iraqi-invasion.html
It does seem bizarre that the rantings of UKIP have actually succeeded in persuading so many people that trade is a bad thing. In the UK. A country whose entire place in the world was built as a trading nation. Who built unsurpassed wealth based entirely on trade.
But please, continue to rant at history and tilt at windmills. Your responses continue to amuse.
"The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."
It does seem bizarre that the rantings of UKIP have actually succeeded in persuading so many people that trade is a bad thing. In the UK. A country whose entire place in the world was built as a trading nation. Who built unsurpassed wealth based entirely on trade.
But please, continue to rant at history and tilt at windmills. Your responses continue to amuse.
Not at all. I tried explaining to you how your claims were wrong and guess what, you went silent and refused to answer. Robert also pointed out how wrong you were and not a word did we hear in response.
You continue to 'play the man' as you call it, making wild and unfounded claims or simply plucking figures out of the air which bear no relation to reality. And when challenged about it you either run away or answer with another wild rant.
Your understanding of history, economics, the EU and just about every other subject you post on is so fundamentally flawed or simply non existent that once we have pointed out your idiocy and explained where you are wrong there is nothing much left to do other than laugh at you.
I look forward to your next attempt to rationalise your lunacy after which I will again point out how utterly wrong you are and give you the correct figures for you to ignore... again.
Oh Social Media...??
It could be that 'Danny' has remembered ...
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12201
''The Leader of Glasgow City Council has today (3 July 2014) welcomed the news that the UK Government will tomorrow announce a City Deal worth £1.13billion for the Glasgow City Region.''
''Councillor Gordon Matheson, Leader of Glasgow City Council, said: "This is fantastic news for Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. It will help us to move to the next level in terms of economic growth for the City Region. We have been working closely together with the UK Government on this project for some time, and I am delighted to say it has borne fruit. '' ''
''The City Deal will be used to fund major infrastructure projects, drive innovation and growth through the support of key sectors such as life sciences, and address challenges in the local labour market.
These projects will allow a programme of work to go ahead which will greatly add to the value of the local economy over the next twenty years.
The UK Government will give the City Region £500million in grant funding, and is inviting the Scottish Government to match this. The local authorities involved will borrow a further £130million.''
Maybe you can also explain how to pay for the current pension time bomb without significant further immigration and how the exchequer will cope with tens of billions of lost revenue from losing immigrant labour's taxes.
http://www.agma.gov.uk/gmca/city-deal-announcement/
''A radical Earnback model where the government has agreed in principle that up to £1.2 billion invested up front in infrastructure improvements by Greater Manchester will be ‘paid back’ to the combined authority as real economic growth is seen. This is the first tax increment finance-style scheme in England outside London.
These ‘earned back’ funds will be reinvested in further infrastructure improvements to allow Greater Manchester to reach its economic potential. The first phase of this will include the completion of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund programme, enabling the early implementation of schemes including the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (SEMMMS) and the extension of Metrolink to Trafford Park. ''
It is reasonable to discuss the size and speed of the decline and whether it can be mitagated by trade with the RoW, but I would have thought that the decline would be apparent fairly quickly.
'the standard historic response of all blamist parties is to tighten up their blamist policies'
Just like the SNP then.
The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact.
That we can deal with our pension timebomb by importing people is a myth. All it does is kick it down the road a little and make it worse because we then have a larger population needing pension provision.
Every figure you have produced so far - and there have not been many of them amongst the rants - has been wrong. Which is some going when there are so many people on here who have already produced the correct figures.
I short you know nothing and every posting you make proves that more comprehensively.
Now to bed. If you have any further drivel to post I will read it in the morning and then correct you. Again.
UKIP certainly seems to have changed. I used to see them as a free trade, free market organisation, who wanted to leave the EU, not because they didnt like trading with the rest of Europe, but because it inhibited our ability to freely trade with the rest of the world. I used to sympathise quite strongly with that position.
That seems to have changed. The over emphasis on immigration seems to be their mainstay now.
At the time, he was very worried for Pakistan as a country, but I don't think he could ever have foresaw what has occurred.
BTW City Deals are not funded by the UK Infrastructure Budget, they are funded from a range of budgets including Communities, BIS, CMS and Treasury.
Something like 90% of the UK Infrastructure Budget has been spent historically in London and its surrounds (such things as Crossrail and the new Sewer being major beneficiaries). HS2 might dilute London's share but HS2 is really a pro-London project and doesn't benefit Scotland one jot.
Your second point we already know the answer to. The UK is ALREADY trying to develop trade with the rest of the world. It is not doing particularly well.
Would people really rather have Kelly tolhurst putting the case for eu withdrawal on national television?
So tell me how that is not going well exactly?
Currently the UK imports £6bn worth of food, predominantly from the EU. That will still be £6bn of food imports inside or outside the EU. If the EU desires to impose export tariffs on trade with the UK (and there are a lot of reasons why it might) that cost is going to be much higher.
The same applies for everything else you get from the EU, there may be small benefits in some areas but overall, you're still going to be importing far, far more than you export. That's not entirely untrue. However the only way to deal with Entitlements is to have demonstrable examples in other countries. The longer you kick it down the road the more chance you have of persuading the public that the changes are needed without becoming electorally toxic. Generally I'll look up a figure but occasionally I will go from memory and apologise if I make an error. The only figure you claim that is wrong was one used to demonstrate a principle, the actual value is irrelevant.
Meanwhile you claim the UK will suddenly become an exporting nation when I just debunked it completely in three brief paragraphs. You need to wake up beyond your prejudice about foreigners. It is clouding your judgement.
Even the Saxe-Coburg-Goethe family were trapped; hence them buying Balmoral in an effort to feel as though they are abroad.
He pisses the right off with his wind farmery and now the left with the tuition fees complete U-turn.
The EU applies a levy on CAP exports
https://www.gov.uk/exporting-common-agricultural-policy-goods
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31681293
This didn't seem to get any coverage, but if the "Centre Party" had won that could have seriously shifted the dynamic.
Tuition cuts ‘a threat to Scots universities’
One of Britain’s most prestigious universities has warned Ed Miliband that plans to cut tuition fees could “threaten its very survival”.
The Labour leader came under fire from the University of St Andrews after announcing plans to slash annual fees by £3,000, if he becomes prime minister at the general election in May.
A spokesman for the university, which is 600 years old, said the plan could cause “significant damage” to teaching and research.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4369451.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_03_01