There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
I noted in the Janker letter that the language was all about "speed towards an ever closer union" and allowing countries to move towards at this at differing speeds. The EU bods can never ever contemplate that perhaps countries or citizens don't want ever closer union, that perhaps it is close enough already.
That's absolutely right. And I think the EU would be better off changing to a different structure:
Eurozone
+
EEA, non-Eurozone
Essentially, those European countries who are not Eurozone members would leave the EU. All competences over the Eurozone would then go to the EU. This would enable them to make the steps they need to make to solve their problems.
The EEA would remain a part of the single market, and would retain the "four freedoms", but would not be bound by labour laws, and governments would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
The EEA would be allowed to veto EU legislation, but not legislation that only affected the Eurozone.
You want to have the cake and eat it ! Why should they allow entry to the single market so easily. The EEA today has to comply with EU legislation.
You have not talked about freedom of people to travel and work. Where do you stand on that ?
Basically we are going to have 18 months of European recession/ slow growth, ever more 'refugees' from the Middle East/ Libya, the occasional ISIS terrorist getting through, escalating house prices due to lack of supply vs demand, ever increasing net immigration figures as people (quite rightly) prefer to come to an economy that appears to be growing.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
A totally free market, crickey that some dangerous thinking there :-)
You want to have the cake and eat it ! Why should they allow entry to the single market so easily. The EEA today has to comply with EU legislation.
You have not talked about freedom of people to travel and work. Where do you stand on that ?
I mentioned it explicitly: EEA members would abide by the four freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate against non nationals. So, the UK could - if it desired - have a 500 pound annual NHS surcharge for non-citizens.
It would allow people the freedom to hire who they wanted (and would continue to allow UK citizens to work abroad), all with a minimum of bureaucracy. However, it would also almost certainly practically limit immigration.
@britainelects: EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-2) Leave: 42% (+2) (via Survation / early Dec) 10k person sample size.
"Don't know" is remain in disguise.
That is "leave" problem.
Won't stop Dave getting the heebie jeebies over the polling though.
I can genuinely see Leave winning now. Something I thought inconceivable two years ago.
From the migration crisis to a lazy prime minister, everything is in Leave's favour.
I'd put Remain at 1/2 , a year ago I'd have put Remain at 1/20
The one thing the Inners have is almost total control of the timing
This is going to be like the Indyref all over again isn't it, with you going all ponceyboots gaylord over every poll?
I have no snail in this race. I fervently wanted NO to win indyref, I don't especially mind who wins eu-ref. I can see advantages with either choice.
So my perspective may be more valuable. Or not. Besides, I'm drunk.
I'm suffering from whiplash from my own mood swings on this referendum.
A year ago I was a committed Europhile, now I'm leaning towards Leave.
Just waiting for the EU referendum so I can do threads entitled
Europe: The Final Countdown
There's no question that Remain has lost the initial encounters. Bizarrely inept. I suspect a UKIP mole at Number 10
The least professional, most unpopular party with a hated leader getting the biggest result in recent british political history
But you can be sure if we leave it will be BAAAAD for the kippers according to the wise owls on here, and a triumph for Dave
If Britain leaves the EU it will be good for the LibDems and bad for UKIP.
The former will lose its most unpopular policy, and the latter its most popular.
Quite ridiculous
Yes it may spell the end of ukip the party, but the people who are that party will have got their no1 policy in place
It's like 16 year olds setting up a group devoted to helping them losing their virginity and others saying its a disaster when they get their nuts in because they'll have to disband the group
Talk on Newsnight that, because Cameron is too weak to force to EU leaders to agree to a ban on EU migrants' access to benefits, he will inflict that ban on fully-fledged British citizens who haven't "contributed" too.
As I said last night, that would push me from leaning "In" to being a firm "Out": I don't wish to stay in the EU so much that I'm willing to deny unlucky British young people benefits for it.
Inside or outside the EU, all benefits should require contributions.
An 18-year-old who hasn't had a chance to "contribute" yet comes down with a serious illness, and isn't lucky enough to have parents rolling in enough money to subsidise them.
Would you deny that 18-year-old benefits?
I wasn't suggesting making the NHS contributory.
That wasn't what I was asking: my point was if s/he was too ill to work, and required a payment to put food on the table.
Hard cases make bad law.
That's not answering my question. Do you think an 18-year-old who hasn't "contributed" should be denied benefits if they come down with a serious illness?
If anything, I would've thought a sensible cost-efficient welfare system should work in the exact opposite way to a "contributory" system. Someone who has worked a lot before will be more likely to have something saved up, and would likely be less in need of the welfare safety net than someone who's never had a chance to work before
Basically we are going to have 18 months of European recession/ slow growth, ever more 'refugees' from the Middle East/ Libya, the occasional ISIS terrorist getting through, escalating house prices due to lack of supply vs demand, ever increasing net immigration figures as people (quite rightly) prefer to come to an economy that appears to be growing.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
Eurozone GDP growth has been rising, while ours has been slowing. On present trends the Eurozone is likely to be outgrowing the UK from 2Q16.
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
Yebbut yebbut yebbut....
what if he had sought bids for widgets from six EU countries. And you. And all the other bids were in a format and included information that was standardised and directly comparable. And then there was yours which consisted of a passage of interpretive dance to explain the basic widget properties?
There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
The investment decisions of a small number of companies taken during a short timeframe is, or at any rate should be, irrelevant. Not only will the amount of money involved be trivial in the great scheme of things but actually the future of the UK as a nation state is rather above the the needs of a CEO of some multi-national whose prime concern is his bonus.
I was not suggesting that was not a price worth paying, or otherwise. (In fact, I've already said I think both the EU and the UK would benefit from Brexit.)
I am merely pointing out that as the UK has not decided on what relationship it would like with the EU post-exit, there will be consequences from a period of uncertainty. You should also be aware that FDI flows into the UK have totalled more than 150bn in the last five years, so they are not that small.
Fair go, Mr. 1000. I am very interested in that £150bn figure though. £30bn a year, do you have a source that shows how that money was invested?
I only ask because some foreign investment is of undoubted benefit (e.g. Honda's factory at Swindon), some is of dubious benefit (e.g. Russian oligarchs buying up property in London), and some is downright harmful asset stripping (e.g. Kraft takeover of Cadbury).
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
I wish it were that simple :-)
For humour value, go and read the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
I do find it hilarious that so many people, even here on PB which you'd have thought was a worldly-wise group, take seriously journalists telling us how the renegotiation is going, on the basis of nothing in particular other than speculation.
Guys (it is mainly guys), why not wait and see what is actually agreed, rather than getting het up about reports which are 100% certainly wrong - for the very good reason that nothing is agreed yet?
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
A totally free market, crickey that some dangerous thinking there :-)
Yes, let's babble on about the EEA, the EU, the Eurozone, the single market, the ECJ, the ECHR, the European Commission, an EU army, etc etc instead of just trading with everybody on a level playing field.
Oh no hang on, if we leave the EU Malta will stop buying Ford Anglias.
I wonder how many people on here work in the private sector and understand how it works.
Basically we are going to have 18 months of European recession/ slow growth, ever more 'refugees' from the Middle East/ Libya, the occasional ISIS terrorist getting through, escalating house prices due to lack of supply vs demand, ever increasing net immigration figures as people (quite rightly) prefer to come to an economy that appears to be growing.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
Eurozone GDP growth has been rising, while ours has been slowing. On present trends the Eurozone is likely to be outgrowing the UK from 2Q16.
It might even be earlier. I cannot see how the "Services" can keep on growing while everything else is down; manufacturing, external trade etc.
There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
The investment decisions of a small number of companies taken during a short timeframe is, or at any rate should be, irrelevant. Not only will the amount of money involved be trivial in the great scheme of things but actually the future of the UK as a nation state is rather above the the needs of a CEO of some multi-national whose prime concern is his bonus.
I was not suggesting that was not a price worth paying, or otherwise. (In fact, I've already said I think both the EU and the UK would benefit from Brexit.)
I am merely pointing out that as the UK has not decided on what relationship it would like with the EU post-exit, there will be consequences from a period of uncertainty. You should also be aware that FDI flows into the UK have totalled more than 150bn in the last five years, so they are not that small.
Fair go, Mr. 1000. I am very interested in that £150bn figure though. £30bn a year, do you have a source that shows how that money was invested?
I only ask because some foreign investment is of undoubted benefit (e.g. Honda's factory at Swindon), some is of dubious benefit (e.g. Russian oligarchs buying up property in London), and some is downright harmful asset stripping (e.g. Kraft takeover of Cadbury).
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
The investment decisions of a small number of companies taken during a short timeframe is, or at any rate should be, irrelevant. Not only will the amount of money involved be trivial in the great scheme of things but actually the future of the UK as a nation state is rather above the the needs of a CEO of some multi-national whose prime concern is his bonus.
I was not suggesting that was not a price worth paying, or otherwise. (In fact, I've already said I think both the EU and the UK would benefit from Brexit.)
I am merely pointing out that as the UK has not decided on what relationship it would like with the EU post-exit, there will be consequences from a period of uncertainty. You should also be aware that FDI flows into the UK have totalled more than 150bn in the last five years, so they are not that small.
Fair go, Mr. 1000. I am very interested in that £150bn figure though. £30bn a year, do you have a source that shows how that money was invested?
I only ask because some foreign investment is of undoubted benefit (e.g. Honda's factory at Swindon), some is of dubious benefit (e.g. Russian oligarchs buying up property in London), and some is downright harmful asset stripping (e.g. Kraft takeover of Cadbury).
The latter business is an example of the very worst kind of corporate predator, and as RCS points out down thread could very easily shut down it's UK operations in a fit of pique, and build other plants elsewhere having drained it's host of life-force i.e. cash and assets, and not paid any Corporation tax.
I do find it hilarious that so many people, even here on PB which you'd have thought was a worldly-wise group, take seriously journalists telling us how the renegotiation is going, on the basis of nothing in particular other than speculation.
Guys (it is mainly guys), why not wait and see what is actually agreed, rather than getting het up about reports which are 100% certainly wrong - for the very good reason that nothing is agreed yet?
I take these reports in the same way as the transfer "rumours" in the period when the football transfer window is closed. The journos have to write something every day, often clubs do make some very passing enquiries (ie manager A asks manager B after a game, what do you think of lad X?) or the player agent wants to virtually signal something, but between the made up nonsense, the misdirection, etc etc etc, virtually none of all those column inches written every day on the back pages of the newspapers comes to pass.
I do find it hilarious that so many people, even here on PB which you'd have thought was a worldly-wise group, take seriously journalists telling us how the renegotiation is going, on the basis of nothing in particular other than speculation.
Guys (it is mainly guys), why not wait and see what is actually agreed, rather than getting het up about reports which are 100% certainly wrong - for the very good reason that nothing is agreed yet?
Because I don't want him to agree anything, I want us to leave. I did before Cameron became PM and I'll want us to if he's gone and we're still in.
There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
The investment decisions of a small number of companies taken during a short timeframe is, or at any rate should be, irrelevant. Not only will the amount of money involved be trivial in the great scheme of things but actually the future of the UK as a nation state is rather above the the needs of a CEO of some multi-national whose prime concern is his bonus.
I was not suggesting that was not a price worth paying, or otherwise. (In fact, I've already said I think both the EU and the UK would benefit from Brexit.)
I am merely pointing out that as the UK has not decided on what relationship it would like with the EU post-exit, there will be consequences from a period of uncertainty. You should also be aware that FDI flows into the UK have totalled more than 150bn in the last five years, so they are not that small.
Fair go, Mr. 1000. I am very interested in that £150bn figure though. £30bn a year, do you have a source that shows how that money was invested?
I only ask because some foreign investment is of undoubted benefit (e.g. Honda's factory at Swindon), some is of dubious benefit (e.g. Russian oligarchs buying up property in London), and some is downright harmful asset stripping (e.g. Kraft takeover of Cadbury).
Let's not forget Terrys of York - 1767 was the best box of chocolates ever.
I guess one thing we can say is unlike the Mail people aren't visiting the Guardian for all the z-celeb news and the half naked pictures.
no, cause we can get that from the mail, who do a better job of it! however they're both free, so we can dip in and out as we choose. Possible to read stuff on the guardian while avoiding polly. Also possible to get yr Johnny Depp gossip without reading any Trump-eting on the mail. I read the Telegraph too, but rarely get beyond the article limit (though frothing Hodges is always entertaining). Sometimes the daily mirror when the others are too slow with Stoke city match reports.
I strongly suspect the venn diagram of guardian/mail online readers has a very large intersect (though maybe many wouldn't admit to reading one or the other)
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
A totally free market, crickey that some dangerous thinking there :-)
Yes, let's babble on about the EEA, the EU, the Eurozone, the single market, the ECJ, the ECHR, the European Commission, an EU army, etc etc instead of just trading with everybody on a level playing field.
Oh no hang on, if we leave the EU Malta will stop buying Ford Anglias.
I wonder how many people on here work in the private sector and understand how it works.
Seriously Blackburn. Go and read NAFTA, the TPP, the TIPP, the Swiss-China deal, etc. Trade deals don't work like they used to.
When you sign a deal to get access to the US market, as the Australians have done under the TPP for example, you are required to change your domestic laws to fit in with American laws.
When Switzerland agreed a free trade deal with China, it had to allow Chinese banks to ability to buy local banks... but Swiss banks were limited to a 49% stake in China.
International trade agreements are all horrible and a mess.
I do find it hilarious that so many people, even here on PB which you'd have thought was a worldly-wise group, take seriously journalists telling us how the renegotiation is going, on the basis of nothing in particular other than speculation.
Guys (it is mainly guys), why not wait and see what is actually agreed, rather than getting het up about reports which are 100% certainly wrong - for the very good reason that nothing is agreed yet?
I take these reports in the same way as the transfer "rumours" in the period when the football transfer window is closed. The journos have to write something every day, often clubs do make some very passing enquiries (ie manager A asks manager B after a game, what do you think of lad X?) or the player agent wants to virtually signal something, but between the made up nonsense, the misdirection, etc etc etc, virtually none of all those column inches written every day on the back pages of the newspapers comes to pass.
I can imagine Guardian readers enjoying the Mail for a bit of light relief and to tut, I can't see Mail readers wanting to read the miserablist self righteous columns about quincoa and lentils in the Guardian.
I guess one thing we can say is unlike the Mail people aren't visiting the Guardian for all the z-celeb news and the half naked pictures.
no, cause we can get that from the mail, who do a better job of it! however they're both free, so we can dip in and out as we choose. Possible to read stuff on the guardian while avoiding polly. Also possible to get yr Johnny Depp gossip without reading any Trump-eting on the mail. I read the Telegraph too, but rarely get beyond the article limit (though frothing Hodges is always entertaining). Sometimes the daily mirror when the others are too slow with Stoke city match reports.
I strongly suspect the venn diagram of guardian/mail online readers has a very large intersect (though maybe many wouldn't admit to reading one or the other)
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
A totally free market, crickey that some dangerous thinking there :-)
Yes, let's babble on about the EEA, the EU, the Eurozone, the single market, the ECJ, the ECHR, the European Commission, an EU army, etc etc instead of just trading with everybody on a level playing field.
Oh no hang on, if we leave the EU Malta will stop buying Ford Anglias.
I wonder how many people on here work in the private sector and understand how it works.
Seriously Blackburn. Go and read NAFTA, the TPP, the TIPP, the Swiss-China deal, etc. Trade deals don't work like they used to.
When you sign a deal to get access to the US market, as the Australians have done under the TPP for example, you are required to change your domestic laws to fit in with American laws.
When Switzerland agreed a free trade deal with China, it had to allow Chinese banks to ability to buy local banks... but Swiss banks were limited to a 49% stake in China.
International trade agreements are all horrible and a mess.
I can't believe some people, because politicians and bureaucrats insist something is a good idea they fall for it. Govt needs to get out of the way and let people trade, it's the jobsworths who are telling you what can and can't be done, these people know fuck all about trading.
@britainelects: EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-2) Leave: 42% (+2) (via Survation / early Dec) 10k person sample size.
"Don't know" is remain in disguise.
That is "leave" problem.
Won't stop Dave getting the heebie jeebies over the polling though.
I can genuinely see Leave winning now. Something I thought inconceivable two years ago.
From the migration crisis to a lazy prime minister, everything is in Leave's favour.
I'd put Remain at 1/2 , a year ago I'd have put Remain at 1/20
The one thing the Inners have is almost total control of the timing
This is going to be like the Indyref all over again isn't it, with you going all ponceyboots gaylord over every poll?
I have no snail in this race. I fervently wanted NO to win indyref, I don't especially mind who wins eu-ref. I can see advantages with either choice.
So my perspective may be more valuable. Or not. Besides, I'm drunk.
I'm suffering from whiplash from my own mood swings on this referendum.
A year ago I was a committed Europhile, now I'm leaning towards Leave.
Just waiting for the EU referendum so I can do threads entitled
Europe: The Final Countdown
There's no question that Remain has lost the initial encounters. Bizarrely inept. I suspect a UKIP mole at Number 10
Then you see the fuckwittery at Leave.Eu and you think who actually wants to win this referendum?
What initial encounters? There have been some? Oh I seem to remember a Christmas Twitter. Or was that Corbyn? Or was it a not April Fool?
If you want wuckfittery then keep reading all the profound opinions given free with cornflake packets every day on PB. Or if you can't get on line watch, Have I Got News For You.
no, cause we can get that from the mail, who do a better job of it! however they're both free, so we can dip in and out as we choose. Possible to read stuff on the guardian while avoiding polly. Also possible to get yr Johnny Depp gossip without reading any Trump-eting on the mail. I read the Telegraph too, but rarely get beyond the article limit (though frothing Hodges is always entertaining). Sometimes the daily mirror when the others are too slow with Stoke city match reports.
I strongly suspect the venn diagram of guardian/mail online readers has a very large intersect (though maybe many wouldn't admit to reading one or the other)
btw Yay for leicester again. 'mon the midlands!
I think you are definitely right. I worked in an office full of shall we say "right on" types, who appeared each morning clutching their copy of the Guardian or the Indy...the number of times I would see them on the Mail website getting their gossip fix.
I would like to know what the Mail website viewership is like from inside Guardian tower. Assuming that the website isn't filtered out by the IT bods for having inappropriate content, I can imagine a load of Guardianistas sneakily catching up on who is bonking who, before then bashing out another article decrying the sexist nature of the sidebar of shame.
I mentioned it explicitly: EEA members would abide by the four freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate against non nationals. So, the UK could - if it desired - have a 500 pound annual NHS surcharge for non-citizens.
I'm not sure that's right. I think, though I might be wrong, that the same rules apply to EEA non-EU citizens as to EU citizens. Certainly the NHS doesn't seem to make any distinction:
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
Basically we are going to have 18 months of European recession/ slow growth, ever more 'refugees' from the Middle East/ Libya, the occasional ISIS terrorist getting through, escalating house prices due to lack of supply vs demand, ever increasing net immigration figures as people (quite rightly) prefer to come to an economy that appears to be growing.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
Eurozone GDP growth has been rising, while ours has been slowing. On present trends the Eurozone is likely to be outgrowing the UK from 2Q16.
eurozone growth compared with UK growth since the creation of the euro has been relatively poor. I can't find a comprehensive graph, as I am drunk, but this will have to do
A chart showing the entire period 2000-2015 would reveal pretty much the same pattern, strongish US growth, OK-ish UK growth, almost stagnant eurozone growth.
Given that one of the founding principles of the euro was that it would encourage growth and raise prosperity by generating European trade, we can doubtlessly conclude that the EU's most important economic project is a terrible failure, taking into account what has happened in Greece, etc
Why should we continue to pay membership dues to a club of Provably Stupid People?
Here is something I wrote which you may find interesting
Going back to the topic under discussion - Surely it is the continuous lying drip of the left-wing media (BBC, Guardian, BBC) that has created this attitude. They have created 'the 1%' and have jumped on the bandwagon.
I can imagine Guardian readers enjoying the Mail for a bit of light relief and to tut, I can't see Mail readers wanting to read the miserablist self righteous columns about quincoa and lentils in the Guardian.
no, but there's loads of bullshit about tv and stuff. live blogging the wire. 10000 articles about star wars etc. there's probably some interesting stuff there too sometimes tho I'm hard pressed to remember it (I think I'm still a reader mainly because it's the paper I started reading when I was 14)
Going back to the topic under discussion - Surely it is the continuous lying drip of the left-wing media (BBC, Guardian, BBC) that has created this attitude. They have created 'the 1%' and have jumped on the bandwagon.
I wonder what proportion of the total tax take people think the 1% pay?
» show previous quotes Glasgow in the 60s, 70s and 80s would have put many third world cities to shame. The Loyalists gutted the heart of the city and then left it like that - a rubble strewn wasteland - for the best part of 20 years while building defective tower blocks that destroyed people's lives.
The Clydeside Expressway is a 5 mile Freeway with no interruptions to traffic flow. It merges into Dumbarton Road which is a typical 4 lane city street and has traffic lights, fire stations, etc..
TIMB is your typical fanny that emigrates to America and then slags UK. Guy is an absolute dumpling, ate too many squirrel brains I reckon.
OK, got the facts. Yes, leaving the EU but joining the EEA would make no difference to our ability to charge for NHS care, except in the very short term. EU Directive 2011/24/EU will apply to all EEA states once they get round to reading and acting upon the fax.
no, cause we can get that from the mail, who do a better job of it! however they're both free, so we can dip in and out as we choose. Possible to read stuff on the guardian while avoiding polly. Also possible to get yr Johnny Depp gossip without reading any Trump-eting on the mail. I read the Telegraph too, but rarely get beyond the article limit (though frothing Hodges is always entertaining). Sometimes the daily mirror when the others are too slow with Stoke city match reports.
I strongly suspect the venn diagram of guardian/mail online readers has a very large intersect (though maybe many wouldn't admit to reading one or the other)
btw Yay for leicester again. 'mon the midlands!
I think you are definitely right. I worked in an office full of shall we say "right on" types, who appeared each morning clutching their copy of the Guardian or the Indy...the number of times I would see them on the Mail website getting their gossip fix.
I would like to know what the Mail website viewership is like from inside Guardian tower. Assuming that the website isn't filtered out by the IT bods for having inappropriate content, I can imagine a load of Guardianistas sneakily catching up on who is bonking who, before then bashing out another article decrying the sexist nature of the sidebar of shame.
actually the guardian has a regular series of "ironic" reporting of celebrity goss (no doubt chiefly sourced via the mail). which is ironic, because they report that very same goss, while sighing about how awful it is other papers report the stuff.
And the Star Wars articles will be about gender inequality and racism and who Jar Jar Binks represents in today's cultural context of a dystopian future.
The Mail will have pix of pretty girls and guys and talk about how much they spent on SFX
I can imagine Guardian readers enjoying the Mail for a bit of light relief and to tut, I can't see Mail readers wanting to read the miserablist self righteous columns about quincoa and lentils in the Guardian.
no, but there's loads of bullshit about tv and stuff. live blogging the wire. 10000 articles about star wars etc. there's probably some interesting stuff there too sometimes tho I'm hard pressed to remember it (I think I'm still a reader mainly because it's the paper I started reading when I was 14)
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
I doubt they do. When we had the referendum in the 70s it was sold as the EEC - simply a free trade area - by joining we would have tariff free access to European markets. As their market was much bigger than ours we would make out on the deal. That's how it was sold. There was no anthem, no European court of Justice, no 'ever closer union'. Just a bigger market.
The Tories were very much in favor of it, Labour dead set against it. How times change.
Talk on Newsnight that, because Cameron is too weak to force to EU leaders to agree to a ban on EU migrants' access to benefits, he will inflict that ban on fully-fledged British citizens who haven't "contributed" too.
As I said last night, that would push me from leaning "In" to being a firm "Out": I don't wish to stay in the EU so much that I'm willing to deny unlucky British young people benefits for it.
Inside or outside the EU, all benefits should require contributions.
An 18-year-old who hasn't had a chance to "contribute" yet comes down with a serious illness, and isn't lucky enough to have parents rolling in enough money to subsidise them.
Would you deny that 18-year-old benefits?
I wasn't suggesting making the NHS contributory.
That wasn't what I was asking: my point was if s/he was too ill to work, and required a payment to put food on the table.
Hard cases make bad law.
That's not answering my question. Do you think an 18-year-old who hasn't "contributed" should be denied benefits if they come down with a serious illness?
If anything, I would've thought a sensible cost-efficient welfare system should work in the exact opposite way to a "contributory" system. Someone who has worked a lot before will be more likely to have something saved up, and would likely be less in need of the welfare safety net than someone who's never had a chance to work before
Only if you are so stupid as to believe the presence of such a system would not change people's behaviour to take advantage of it.
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
How has the EU hindered BMW, Mercedes Benz, BASF, Siemens, Thyssenkrupp...
Here's an idea, how about we buy from who we want, sell to who we can and politicians keep out of the way. After all if they were so clever they'd all be making a packet in business.
I sold some things today, I didn't need anybody's approval, the bloke wanted to buy the stuff.
A totally free market, crickey that some dangerous thinking there :-)
Yes, let's babble on about the EEA, the EU, the Eurozone, the single market, the ECJ, the ECHR, the European Commission, an EU army, etc etc instead of just trading with everybody on a level playing field.
Oh no hang on, if we leave the EU Malta will stop buying Ford Anglias.
I wonder how many people on here work in the private sector and understand how it works.
Seriously Blackburn. Go and read NAFTA, the TPP, the TIPP, the Swiss-China deal, etc. Trade deals don't work like they used to.
When you sign a deal to get access to the US market, as the Australians have done under the TPP for example, you are required to change your domestic laws to fit in with American laws.
When Switzerland agreed a free trade deal with China, it had to allow Chinese banks to ability to buy local banks... but Swiss banks were limited to a 49% stake in China.
International trade agreements are all horrible and a mess.
Yeah, Switzerland. How awful to be Switzerland. They are really suffering without those EU wide trade agreements.
I've already said that we would be better off with a Swiss or Norwegian attachment with the EU. I've already said that both us and the EU would benefit from Brexit.
My comment was solely about how difficult being a genuinely free trade nation is in the current environment.
And the Star Wars articles will be about gender inequality and racism and who Jar Jar Binks represents in today's cultural context of a dystopian future.
haha, that may be true, I'm not reading them in general.
I was in a lego shop the other day. They have a new minifigure of Harrison Ford as aged Han Solo. Me and the wife were saying how he (and his lego figure) have aged quite gracefully, with no obvious Hollywood surgery or anything.
I am quite excited about the new movie by proxy - our 8 year old is well up for it. We'll be going on Jan 1st though as it's cheaper! (sadly it's going to be dubbed in Japanese...)
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
I doubt they do. When we had the referendum in the 70s it was sold as the EEC - simply a free trade area - by joining we would have tariff free access to European markets. As their market was much bigger than ours we would make out on the deal. That's how it was sold. There was no anthem, no European court of Justice, no 'ever closer union'. Just a bigger market.
The Tories were very much in favor of it, Labour dead set against it. How times change.
Ask a conservative voter if he's a free marketeer, 99% will say yes. According to what I read on here a significant % wants to be in the EU.
On topic: I'm not sure the problem is cross-contamination across the Atlantic particularly. We're perfectly capable of creating our own statistical myths, without any help from the Yanks.
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
I doubt they do. When we had the referendum in the 70s it was sold as the EEC - simply a free trade area - by joining we would have tariff free access to European markets. As their market was much bigger than ours we would make out on the deal. That's how it was sold. There was no anthem, no European court of Justice, no 'ever closer union'. Just a bigger market.
The Tories were very much in favor of it, Labour dead set against it. How times change.
Labour basically changed their mind when Delors persuaded them that the EU's social policies could be achieved in the UK by joining, even if the UK parliament as a whole would not promote them.
» show previous quotes Glasgow in the 60s, 70s and 80s would have put many third world cities to shame. The Loyalists gutted the heart of the city and then left it like that - a rubble strewn wasteland - for the best part of 20 years while building defective tower blocks that destroyed people's lives.
The Clydeside Expressway is a 5 mile Freeway with no interruptions to traffic flow. It merges into Dumbarton Road which is a typical 4 lane city street and has traffic lights, fire stations, etc..
TIMB is your typical fanny that emigrates to America and then slags UK. Guy is an absolute dumpling, ate too many squirrel brains I reckon.
I said it was sad, down on its luck in the mid 70s and presumably it has greatly improved since then. That's not slagging anything. It's been 40 years - Scotland was not having a good time economically in the mid 70s. That's not slagging either, just a fact. I have no reason to wish anything in the UK other than the best.The rest of your comment doesn't merit response.
The most successful nations in history are traders, it's why socialism always fails. The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
How has the EU hindered BMW, Mercedes Benz, BASF, Siemens, Thyssenkrupp...
They're not countries. They thrived long before the EU was set up because they make things people want to buy.
Of course if we leave the EU the Germans will refuse to sell us cars.
Ask a conservative voter if he's a free marketeer, 99% will say yes. According to what I read on here a significant % wants to be in the EU.
Are these people stupid?
No, they are not.
I suppose you do realise (or perhaps I'm being over optimistic) that, of all major developed countries, the one which by a country mile is most successful at exporting is in the EU?
Why do you ignore this extremely obvious and salient point?
Talk on Newsnight that, because Cameron is too weak to force to EU leaders to agree to a ban on EU migrants' access to benefits, he will inflict that ban on fully-fledged British citizens who haven't "contributed" too.
As I said last night, that would push me from leaning "In" to being a firm "Out": I don't wish to stay in the EU so much that I'm willing to deny unlucky British young people benefits for it.
Inside or outside the EU, all benefits should require contributions.
An 18-year-old who hasn't had a chance to "contribute" yet comes down with a serious illness, and isn't lucky enough to have parents rolling in enough money to subsidise them.
Would you deny that 18-year-old benefits?
I wasn't suggesting making the NHS contributory.
That wasn't what I was asking: my point was if s/he was too ill to work, and required a payment to put food on the table.
Hard cases make bad law.
That's not answering my question. Do you think an 18-year-old who hasn't "contributed" should be denied benefits if they come down with a serious illness?
If anything, I would've thought a sensible cost-efficient welfare system should work in the exact opposite way to a "contributory" system. Someone who has worked a lot before will be more likely to have something saved up, and would likely be less in need of the welfare safety net than someone who's never had a chance to work before
Only if you are so stupid as to believe the presence of such a system would not change people's behaviour to take advantage of it.
I was not advocating that system: I would keep JSA, ESA, etc., all at the same level for everyone irrespective of their previous employment (or their "contributions").
I was just saying that, if one was going to start taking "contributions" into account when awarding benefits, it really doesn't make much sense to target the money at people who are likely to have more money saved up as opposed to people who have nothing saved.
To get tariff free access to the US market, you need to sign the TPP (assuming you are a Pacific country...)
even the industries that have no interest in access to the US market (like domestic rice producers) have to deal with it. I suspect it peripherally relates to "free" trade but the chief aim is to cement the strength of large corporations. How free the trade (or how effective the market) is under those circumstances I'm not sure.
I haven't read it, though, not even for comedic value, so willing to bow to your superior knowledge
Ask a conservative voter if he's a free marketeer, 99% will say yes. According to what I read on here a significant % wants to be in the EU.
Are these people stupid?
No, they are not.
I suppose you do realise (or perhaps I'm being over optimistic) that, of all major developed countries, the one which by a country mile is most successful at exporting is in the EU?
Why do you ignore this extremely obvious and salient point?
The most obvious and salient point is that the country you refer to makes things people want to buy.
The latter business is an example of the very worst kind of corporate predator, and as RCS points out down thread could very easily shut down it's UK operations in a fit of pique, and build other plants elsewhere having drained it's host of life-force i.e. cash and assets, and not paid any Corporation tax.
If someone buys a British company for £n and then shuts down that company's UK production, R&D and anything else does that purchase price still count as inward investment?
How about a slightly different example, an Australian fund buys a UK water utility syphons off billions in dividend payments back to Australia and stuffs its customers (who can go to no other company remember) with increased bills for investment in new facilities. Is that foreign investment?
I haven't had a chance yet to look at the spreadsheet RCS100 pointed me to but I strongly believe that a lot of the Foreign Investment we are supposed to be so keen on is actually harmful. It hurts the UK economy and the UK consumer.
If Kraft had not taken over Cadbury would the UK be better or worse off?
Basically we are going to have 18 months of European recession/ slow growth, ever more 'refugees' from the Middle East/ Libya, the occasional ISIS terrorist getting through, escalating house prices due to lack of supply vs demand, ever increasing net immigration figures as people (quite rightly) prefer to come to an economy that appears to be growing.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
Eurozone GDP growth has been rising, while ours has been slowing. On present trends the Eurozone is likely to be outgrowing the UK from 2Q16.
eurozone growth compared with UK growth since the creation of the euro has been relatively poor. I can't find a comprehensive graph, as I am drunk, but this will have to do
A chart showing the entire period 2000-2015 would reveal pretty much the same pattern, strongish US growth, OK-ish UK growth, almost stagnant eurozone growth.
Given that one of the founding principles of the euro was that it would encourage growth and raise prosperity by generating European trade, we can doubtlessly conclude that the EU's most important economic project is a terrible failure, taking into account what has happened in Greece, etc
Why should we continue to pay membership dues to a club of Provably Stupid People?
Here is something I wrote which you may find interesting
sorry. Can't get over your prediction of sub-5 GDP growth in China in Xi Jinping's inaugural year. I mean, you do this shit for a living, pretty much, whereas I just write thrillers.
I travel Europe, and it is clear to me that, whereas 20=30 years ago French and German living standards, perhaps even Italian, were ahead of the UK's, now the UK has caught up and probably overtaken France and Italy. And is closing in on Germany. And this is in the period of the euro's creation when it was meant to be stimulating growth
I was in Venice last week. There are dodgy council houses in Venice where the locals can barely afford a grappa. This is a city that generates enormous sums of money. Where is it going? Not to the Venetians, that's for sure.
On the other hand I'm not sure the euro is entirely to blame. Austria prospers, as does Australia. Culture is as important as currency
:-)
Yes. I got my China GDP growth prediction wrong.
If you want I can do a whole thread on it tomorrow.
The most obvious and salient point is that the country you refer to makes things people want to buy.
And is able to sell them, fantastically successfully (more successfully than any other developed nation), all over the world. And yet - according to you - it is hidebound by being a member of the EU.
You don't see a tiny little problemette with your position?
Or, to put it more accurately, your position is completely and comprehensively demolished by the facts.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
On topic: I'm not sure the problem is cross-contamination across the Atlantic particularly. We're perfectly capable of creating our own statistical myths, without any help from the Yanks.
Yes, no matter how far crime, unemployment and fuel prices (99.9p a litre of unleaded at my local Tesco now) fall, Her Majesty's Press will always tell us the country is going to hell in a handcart.
Talk on Newsnight that, because Cameron is too weak to force to EU leaders to agree to a ban on EU migrants' access to benefits, he will inflict that ban on fully-fledged British citizens who haven't "contributed" too.
As I said last night, that would push me from leaning "In" to being a firm "Out": I don't wish to stay in the EU so much that I'm willing to deny unlucky British young people benefits for it.
Inside or outside the EU, all benefits should require contributions.
An 18-year-old who hasn't had a chance to "contribute" yet comes down with a serious illness, and isn't lucky enough to have parents rolling in enough money to subsidise them.
Would you deny that 18-year-old benefits?
I wasn't suggesting making the NHS contributory.
That wasn't what I was asking: my point was if s/he was too ill to work, and required a payment to put food on the table.
Hard cases make bad law.
That's not answering my question. Do you think an 18-year-old who hasn't "contributed" should be denied benefits if they come down with a serious illness?
If anything, I would've thought a sensible cost-efficient welfare system should work in the exact opposite way to a "contributory" system. Someone who has worked a lot before will be more likely to have something saved up, and would likely be less in need of the welfare safety net than someone who's never had a chance to work before
Only if you are so stupid as to believe the presence of such a system would not change people's behaviour to take advantage of it.
I was not advocating that system: I would keep JSA, ESA, etc., all at the same level for everyone irrespective of their previous employment (or their "contributions").
I was just saying that, if one was going to start taking "contributions" into account when awarding benefits, it really doesn't make much sense to target the money at people who are likely to have more money saved up as opposed to people who have nothing saved.
Contributions based JSA is paid regardless of savings based on NI contributions but only for 6 months
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
Germany being a winner doesn't necessarily mean everyone's a winner in the EU tho
Germany being a winner doesn't necessarily mean everyone's a winner in the EU tho
No, but it does drive a coach and horses through the argument that we have to leave the EU in order to trade successfully with the rest of the world. It's a stupid argument.
To get tariff free access to the US market, you need to sign the TPP (assuming you are a Pacific country...)
even the industries that have no interest in access to the US market (like domestic rice producers) have to deal with it. I suspect it peripherally relates to "free" trade but the chief aim is to cement the strength of large corporations. How free the trade (or how effective the market) is under those circumstances I'm not sure.
I haven't read it, though, not even for comedic value, so willing to bow to your superior knowledge
It is astonishing how much the world has changed. It used to be that we sold a widget to a country, and they paid for it. And we could argue about tariffs.
But take one of my businesses, the outstanding PythonAnywhere. It's a UK limited company, where most of the servers sit in the United States, but where the biggest customers are in Europe and Asia.
How do you deal with tariffs on an electronic product sold from the UK to India, but where the actual work is done on a server in the United States?
And if you allow total free wheeling and dealing, then you allow corporations to domicile in Ireland or the British Virgin Islands and provision services and goods from there, even if no actual work took place there.
It's a recipe for tax avoidance.
I'm not saying I disagree with your goals. They are laudable. But the world is not about shipping widgets on boats anymore. And trade treaties are horrible complex beasties and big countries seek to impose their wills on smaller ones.\
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
Well, that was a pretty entertaining and lucrative evening at the KP. Could I point out that the bookies are still undervaluing Leicester City. I am on at 3000/1 on Leicester winning the title, but it is still possible to get 21 on Leicester City winning the league and 2/1 finishing top 4.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
The most obvious and salient point is that the country you refer to makes things people want to buy.
And is able to sell them, fantastically successfully (more successfully than any other developed nation), all over the world. And yet - according to you - it is hidebound by being a member of the EU.
You don't see a tiny little problemette with your position?
Or, to put it more accurately, your position is completely and comprehensively demolished by the facts.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
How about Korean and Japanese companies, they seem to have done OK without the help of the EU.
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
Yes, exactly - that is the key point. More than that, we'd immediately sign an agreement with the EU which would have the effect of us buying straight back in to much - probably nearly all - of what we'd just left. The Brexit debate is really about how much we'd buy back into, which is why it is so disappointing that the Leave side haven't done any serious thinking on this.
On topic: I'm not sure the problem is cross-contamination across the Atlantic particularly. We're perfectly capable of creating our own statistical myths, without any help from the Yanks.
Yes, no matter how far crime, unemployment and fuel prices (99.9p a litre of unleaded at my local Tesco now) fall, Her Majesty's Press will always tell us the country is going to hell in a handcart.
I filled up the other day for $1.78 a gallon. The place is sure to hell going somewhere in a handcart, being ripped off like that.
Maybe this place is too - a commentator on MSNBC - Melissa Harris-Perry - is claiming that Star Wars is racist because Darth Vader dressed in black. MSNBC has absolutely no shame. Does she not remember that Vader's voice was James Earl Jones?
The most obvious and salient point is that the country you refer to makes things people want to buy.
And is able to sell them, fantastically successfully (more successfully than any other developed nation), all over the world. And yet - according to you - it is hidebound by being a member of the EU.
You don't see a tiny little problemette with your position?
Or, to put it more accurately, your position is completely and comprehensively demolished by the facts.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
How about Korean and Japanese companies, they seem to have done OK without the help of the EU.
They have indeed. As have Norwegian, Swiss, and the like.
It is -obviously- perfectly possible to prosper and thrive outside the EU. I have absolutely no doubt that we would. Furthermore, I suspect that both us and the EU would benefit from our departure.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
How about Korean and Japanese companies, they seem to have done OK without the help of the EU.
I didn't say we'd be worse off. In practice, I don't think we would be worse off (except for the short-term uncertainty effect which @rcs1000 flagged earlier), because we'd sign trade agreements to get access to the key markets - and, in doing that, give up sovereignty.
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
Yes, exactly - that is the key point. More than that, we'd immediately sign an agreement with the EU which would have the effect of us buying straight back in to what we'd just left. The Brexit debate is really about how much we'd buy back into, which is why it is so disappointing that the Leave side haven't done any serious thinking on this.
That is because there are many different shades of "Leavers" (as there are of "Remainers"). Some would like us to join the EEA and continue with the free movement of labour. Some would like to end all immigration and not join any international trade body that restricts sovereignty.
My biggest concern is that we vote to leave and then spend five years arguing about what we want on the far side.
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
Yes, exactly - that is the key point. More than that, we'd immediately sign an agreement with the EU which would have the effect of us buying straight back in to what we'd just left. The Brexit debate is really about how much we'd buy back into, which is why it is so disappointing that the Leave side haven't done any serious thinking on this.
While this may all be true, the Tories should be wary that this could increasingly be seen as a referendum on "Cameron's renegotiation" - and how a whole tranche of lefties will be necessary to win.
As I said before, I personally will not be willing to vote to deny young British citizens benefits if they haven't "contributed", if that is part of the renegotiation.
Well, that was a pretty entertaining and lucrative evening at the KP. Could I point out that the bookies are still undervaluing Leicester City. I am on at 3000/1 on Leicester winning the title, but it is still possible to get 21 on Leicester City winning the league and 2/1 finishing top 4.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
There is still money to be made...
They have had a ludicrously easy fixture list though I think
Still have to go to the Emirates, Man City, old Trafford, whl, anfield, and Stamford bridge haven't they?
Well, that was a pretty entertaining and lucrative evening at the KP. Could I point out that the bookies are still undervaluing Leicester City. I am on at 3000/1 on Leicester winning the title, but it is still possible to get 21 on Leicester City winning the league and 2/1 finishing top 4.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
There is still money to be made...
They have had a ludicrously easy fixture list though I think
Still have to go to the Emirates, Man City, old Trafford, whl, anfield, and Stamford bridge haven't they?
Yeah but the way Chelsea are playing Stamford Bridge should be a walk in the park
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
It is astonishing how much the world has changed. It used to be that we sold a widget to a country, and they paid for it. And we could argue about tariffs.
But take one of my businesses, the outstanding PythonAnywhere. It's a UK limited company, where most of the servers sit in the United States, but where the biggest customers are in Europe and Asia.
How do you deal with tariffs on an electronic product sold from the UK to India, but where the actual work is done on a server in the United States?
And if you allow total free wheeling and dealing, then you allow corporations to domicile in Ireland or the British Virgin Islands and provision services and goods from there, even if no actual work took place there.
It's a recipe for tax avoidance.
I'm not saying I disagree with your goals. They are laudable. But the world is not about shipping widgets on boats anymore. And trade treaties are horrible complex beasties and big countries seek to impose their wills on smaller ones.\
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
I'll give it a shot. A little light reading with my Xmas pudding...
My interest is in agriculture (specifically maintenance of genetic diversity within crops and crop relatives). It seems hard to see TPP in anything but negative terms, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
I suspect German car sales in the US are about to decline somewhat...
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
What on earth has Germany selling us cars got to do with anything?
Here are the facts: Germany is the developed world's number 1 exporter, by a country mile. It is a member of the EU.
Therefore, even a Kipper should be able to figure out that being a member of the EU is not, of itself, a barrier to trading successfully with the rest of the world, as you seemed to think. There may be other arguments in support of us leaving, but that one fails even the most cursory credibility test.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
An admirably eloquent essay by antifrank, as ever. But The Guardian is now read by about 10 people.
It's important to remember that just as rightwing red top tabloids are declining in influence, so is the established leftwing media, including the BBC. The plebs are in revolt across the spectrum, and will no longer be force-fed.
That said, the Guardian is significant, for the moment, in terms of internal Labour politics. My guess is that 98% of seriously active members, supporters and MPs in this dwindling party read the Guardian in some form every day.
And what are they doing today? Destroying one of their brightest centrist MPs. Jess Phillips. Check the quite indescribable comments (the ones the moderators let through) beneath this article - a flood of misogyny, snobbery and visceral loathing that the Telegraph kippers would find hard to equal.
As someone says in the thread, she's a white working class woman, ergo everything the Corbynistas hate.
Judging by this, we can expect the next Labour government in about 2035.
Lummy, those comments are dreadful.
I'm convinced that the Labour party is imploding after this Trot-takeover.
How long before everyone except Corbo, McMao and Diane Abbot are the only ones left in the party after everyone else has been considered a critic and thus deemed a Tory.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
Where is 'here"?
Tim_B is in the US.
Now I have to go to bed. My daughter is 8 tomorrow
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
I suspect German car sales in the US are about to decline somewhat...
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
You can do better than this, Mr Nabavi. If the arguments for REMAIN are basically going to be LIES then you are going to LOSE
God, not you too. 'Lies'? Come off it - it's not a lie to say that Germany is the developed world's most successful exporter.
And what on earth do you mean by saying 'you are going to lose'? I'm not arguing in favour of staying. I haven't yet decided how I will vote, it depends mainly on the question of dealing with the dominance of the Eurozone and protecting the City.
I am, however, arguing against nonsense, in this case the suggestion that being in the EU prevents us trading successfully with the rest of the world.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
Where is 'here"?
Tim_B is in the US.
Now I have to go to bed. My daughter is 8 tomorrow
Are the 2 statements connected? Happy birthday to her. Don't get her a hoverboard.
The most obvious and salient point is that the country you refer to makes things people want to buy.
And is able to sell them, fantastically successfully (more successfully than any other developed nation), all over the world. And yet - according to you - it is hidebound by being a member of the EU.
You don't see a tiny little problemette with your position?
Or, to put it more accurately, your position is completely and comprehensively demolished by the facts.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
What a total pile of rotten, raggedy pants
Postwar Germany has benefited by
1. being German and efficient and culturally industrious
2. being in the euro which is undervalued re the Deutschmark, enabling it export
and
3. it hasn't even benefited that much. Median German wages have stagnated since the creation of the eurozone
You can do better than this, Mr Nabavi. If the arguments for REMAIN are basically going to be LIES then you are going to LOSE
This is clearly some new definition of the word "lie" that I was not previously aware of.
The argument for Out is simple:
The EU project is morphing into the Eurozone project. We have never been committed "ever closer union" believers. Our culture and legal system (and geography) all mean we are never going to be easy members of the EU. We also have a great deal of interests beyond the EU and are less enmeshed in the state-to-state trading of our continental neighbours. Furthermore, the diminution of sovereignty has reached an excessive level.
Britain will prosper outside the EU, and therefore - while we wish our continental neighbours well - we will be doing it from the outside.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
What on earth has Germany selling us cars got to do with anything?
Here are the facts: Germany is the developed world's number 1 exporter, by a country mile. It is a member of the EU.
Therefore, even a Kipper should be able to figure out that being a member of the EU is not, of itself, a barrier to trading successfully with the rest of the world, as you seemed to think. There may be other arguments in support of us leaving, but that one fails even the most cursory credibility test.
Dear me Mr Nabavi you do get easily upset. My stance is straightforward despite your attempts to twist it.
As a free marketeer I see no reason why we should pay membership fees in order to trade with other countries. If we leave the EU the Germans will happily continue to sell us cars, if other countries decide they want to buy things from us they will.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
I suspect German car sales in the US are about to decline somewhat...
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
Well, that was a pretty entertaining and lucrative evening at the KP. Could I point out that the bookies are still undervaluing Leicester City. I am on at 3000/1 on Leicester winning the title, but it is still possible to get 21 on Leicester City winning the league and 2/1 finishing top 4.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
There is still money to be made...
They have had a ludicrously easy fixture list though I think
Still have to go to the Emirates, Man City, old Trafford, whl, anfield, and Stamford bridge haven't they?
west brom as top midlands team at 20/1 with paddy power (vs stoke at 4/1 with stoke only 3 points ahead) should you fell that leicester are going to fade
Germany being a winner doesn't necessarily mean everyone's a winner in the EU tho
No, but it does drive a coach and horses through the argument that we have to leave the EU in order to trade successfully with the rest of the world. It's a stupid argument.
Not as stupid as you suggest. EZ monetary policy is fit to the needs of the German economy. The binding of the periphery to monetary policy optimized for Germany makes them - via the Euro - uncompetitive vs Germany, creating excellent export opportunities specifically for Germany. Gaining scale in the EU export market helps Germany with its competitiveness for global exports. These factors outweigh the negatives for Germany of the EU. That is not true for any other EU country, except possibly those whose economies are pretty much entirely in synch with Germany's. The Dutch?
There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
I noted in the Janker letter that the language was all about "speed towards an ever closer union" and allowing countries to move towards at this at differing speeds. The EU bods can never ever contemplate that perhaps countries or citizens don't want ever closer union, that perhaps it is close enough already.
That's absolutely right. And I think the EU would be better off changing to a different structure:
Eurozone
+
EEA, non-Eurozone
Essentially, those European countries who are not Eurozone members would leave the EU. All competences over the Eurozone would then go to the EU. This would enable them to make the steps they need to make to solve their problems.
The EEA would remain a part of the single market, and would retain the "four freedoms", but would not be bound by labour laws, and governments would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
The EEA would be allowed to veto EU legislation, but not legislation that only affected the Eurozone.
That is exactly what is required Robert. I'd vote for it!
As it is, I'll be voting leave. I'm convinced that only an out vote will force EU into action.
Mr Nabavi, we've been down the route of you misrepresenting me before.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
They sell lots of cars here - last time I checked we're not in the EU. European cars are actually cheaper here than in the EU, because of the usurious sales taxes and VAT in the EU.
I suspect German car sales in the US are about to decline somewhat...
I'd be interested to hear your reasons for that.
Errr...
Volkswagen?
But they get such great mileage
Seriously though I think it's going to be a short term hit given the compensation programs they have announced and the aggressive fix schedule. They'll be back.
Well, that was a pretty entertaining and lucrative evening at the KP. Could I point out that the bookies are still undervaluing Leicester City. I am on at 3000/1 on Leicester winning the title, but it is still possible to get 21 on Leicester City winning the league and 2/1 finishing top 4.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
There is still money to be made...
They have had a ludicrously easy fixture list though I think
Still have to go to the Emirates, Man City, old Trafford, whl, anfield, and Stamford bridge haven't they?
We are 9 points clear of 5th place. A top 4 finish at 2/1 is excellent value.
And our away form is better than our home form. We last lost away in the league in March, 4:3 at Spurs.
Admittingly Chelsea were dogshit tonight, only making an effort after going 2 goals down. Even then they mostly did not seem interested. But one reason that other teams are rubbish is that Claudio has us set up very well in defence.
Germany being a winner doesn't necessarily mean everyone's a winner in the EU tho
No, but it does drive a coach and horses through the argument that we have to leave the EU in order to trade successfully with the rest of the world. It's a stupid argument.
Not as stupid as you suggest. EZ monetary policy is fit to the needs of the German economy. The binding of the periphery to monetary policy optimized for Germany makes them - via the Euro - uncompetitive vs Germany, creating excellent export opportunities specifically for Germany. Gaining scale in the EU export market helps Germany with its competitiveness for global exports. These factors outweigh the negatives for Germany of the EU. That is not true for any other EU country, except possibly those whose economies are pretty much entirely in synch with Germany's. The Dutch?
I would make the case that Eurozone monetary policy is now oriented towards Spain, Portugal and Italy. QE and 0% interest rates is too lose for Germany right now. It's stoking a housing boom there.
Dear me Mr Nabavi you do get easily upset. My stance is straightforward despite your attempts to twist it.
As a free marketeer I see no reason why we should pay membership fees in order to trade with other countries. If we leave the EU the Germans will happily continue to sell us cars, if other countries decide they want to buy things from us they will.
Nothing could be more straightforward.
Apologies, it's true that I don't suffer fools gladly.
This is what you wrote:
The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
That nonsense having been completely demolished, you are now switching to a completely different argument, about membership fees, and for some bizarre reason talking about the Germans selling us cars. Quite what that has to do with whether being in the EU 'is a massive hindrance' is anyone's guess. Quite apart from anything else, they'd still be in the EU. You are arguing against your own point.
There is really nothing that anyone can do to stop Brexit now. The press has painted such a ridiculous, biased portrait of the EU for so many years that it is deeply ingrained. It's also a much easier sell, lies usually are - it's how No could win Indyref.
The EU will punish the UK, hard. It will not be pretty.
What will they do to punish us?
I believe the plan is to spank us...
More seriously: the big issue with leaving the EU is not the ultimate destination, but a period - say 12-48 months - when it is unclear what the relationship will be between the UK and the EU.
If you are - say - an executive at Mondalez deciding on where to consolidate your European plants, making a choice while the UK's position is unclear, then you will probably choose to go somewhere else.
Of course, once everything is settled on the far side, it will be OK, but the lack of a decided view on the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit will have an inevitable impact on invesmtent in the UK.
I noted in the Janker letter that the language was all about "speed towards an ever closer union" and allowing countries to move towards at this at differing speeds. The EU bods can never ever contemplate that perhaps countries or citizens don't want ever closer union, that perhaps it is close enough already.
That's absolutely right. And I think the EU would be better off changing to a different structure:
Eurozone
+
EEA, non-Eurozone
Essentially, those European countries who are not Eurozone members would leave the EU. All competences over the Eurozone would then go to the EU. This would enable them to make the steps they need to make to solve their problems.
The EEA would remain a part of the single market, and would retain the "four freedoms", but would not be bound by labour laws, and governments would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
The EEA would be allowed to veto EU legislation, but not legislation that only affected the Eurozone.
That is exactly what is required Robert. I'd vote for it!
As it is, I'll be voting leave. I'm convinced that only an out vote will force EU into action.
I think it would work for us, for none Eurozone EU members, and for the Eurozone.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
Germany being a winner doesn't necessarily mean everyone's a winner in the EU tho
The Germans have a reputation for building well engineered, designed and built products. It's got bugger all to do with their membership of anything. 'Ooh, I must buy that over any other, it's made in the EU'. As if.
Not as stupid as you suggest. EZ monetary policy is fit to the needs of the German economy. The binding of the periphery to monetary policy optimized for Germany makes them - via the Euro - uncompetitive vs Germany, creating excellent export opportunities specifically for Germany. Gaining scale in the EU export market helps Germany with its competitiveness for global exports. These factors outweigh the negatives for Germany of the EU. That is not true for any other EU country, except possibly those whose economies are pretty much entirely in synch with Germany's. The Dutch?
That's partially true, but I don't think that has been the case throughout the history of the Euro.
Comments
You have not talked about freedom of people to travel and work. Where do you stand on that ?
The former will lose its most unpopular policy, and the latter its most popular.
There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the period from now to the referendum that could be interpreted as a reason to remain.
It would allow people the freedom to hire who they wanted (and would continue to allow UK citizens to work abroad), all with a minimum of bureaucracy. However, it would also almost certainly practically limit immigration.
Yes it may spell the end of ukip the party, but the people who are that party will have got their no1 policy in place
It's like 16 year olds setting up a group devoted to helping them losing their virginity and others saying its a disaster when they get their nuts in because they'll have to disband the group
If anything, I would've thought a sensible cost-efficient welfare system should work in the exact opposite way to a "contributory" system. Someone who has worked a lot before will be more likely to have something saved up, and would likely be less in need of the welfare safety net than someone who's never had a chance to work before
what if he had sought bids for widgets from six EU countries. And you. And all the other bids were in a format and included information that was standardised and directly comparable. And then there was yours which consisted of a passage of interpretive dance to explain the basic widget properties?
I only ask because some foreign investment is of undoubted benefit (e.g. Honda's factory at Swindon), some is of dubious benefit (e.g. Russian oligarchs buying up property in London), and some is downright harmful asset stripping (e.g. Kraft takeover of Cadbury).
For humour value, go and read the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
See: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
Guys (it is mainly guys), why not wait and see what is actually agreed, rather than getting het up about reports which are 100% certainly wrong - for the very good reason that nothing is agreed yet?
Oh no hang on, if we leave the EU Malta will stop buying Ford Anglias.
I wonder how many people on here work in the private sector and understand how it works.
Table 3.1. I may have understated it - its 245bn over five years.
no, cause we can get that from the mail, who do a better job of it! however they're both free, so we can dip in and out as we choose. Possible to read stuff on the guardian while avoiding polly. Also possible to get yr Johnny Depp gossip without reading any Trump-eting on the mail. I read the Telegraph too, but rarely get beyond the article limit (though frothing Hodges is always entertaining). Sometimes the daily mirror when the others are too slow with Stoke city match reports.
I strongly suspect the venn diagram of guardian/mail online readers has a very large intersect (though maybe many wouldn't admit to reading one or the other)
btw Yay for leicester again. 'mon the midlands!
When you sign a deal to get access to the US market, as the Australians have done under the TPP for example, you are required to change your domestic laws to fit in with American laws.
When Switzerland agreed a free trade deal with China, it had to allow Chinese banks to ability to buy local banks... but Swiss banks were limited to a 49% stake in China.
International trade agreements are all horrible and a mess.
We can decide and debate once we know the facts.
And the Euro, while they were at it.
If you want wuckfittery then keep reading all the profound opinions given free with cornflake packets every day on PB. Or if you can't get on line watch, Have I Got News For You.
I would like to know what the Mail website viewership is like from inside Guardian tower. Assuming that the website isn't filtered out by the IT bods for having inappropriate content, I can imagine a load of Guardianistas sneakily catching up on who is bonking who, before then bashing out another article decrying the sexist nature of the sidebar of shame.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/uk-visitors/visiting-england/Pages/visitors-from-the-eea.aspx
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
http://www.thstailwinds.com/the-labour-market-labyrinth/
Dair said:
» show previous quotes
Glasgow in the 60s, 70s and 80s would have put many third world cities to shame. The Loyalists gutted the heart of the city and then left it like that - a rubble strewn wasteland - for the best part of 20 years while building defective tower blocks that destroyed people's lives.
The Clydeside Expressway is a 5 mile Freeway with no interruptions to traffic flow. It merges into Dumbarton Road which is a typical 4 lane city street and has traffic lights, fire stations, etc..
TIMB is your typical fanny that emigrates to America and then slags UK. Guy is an absolute dumpling, ate too many squirrel brains I reckon.
"You need to get some money in your account fast."
The following day he was charged £250.
That's what the EU does to us,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252940/Cross_Border_Healthcare_Information.pdf
Page 10, footnote a.
The Mail will have pix of pretty girls and guys and talk about how much they spent on SFX
The Tories were very much in favor of it, Labour dead set against it. How times change.
My comment was solely about how difficult being a genuinely free trade nation is in the current environment.
I was in a lego shop the other day. They have a new minifigure of Harrison Ford as aged Han Solo. Me and the wife were saying how he (and his lego figure) have aged quite gracefully, with no obvious Hollywood surgery or anything.
I am quite excited about the new movie by proxy - our 8 year old is well up for it. We'll be going on Jan 1st though as it's cheaper! (sadly it's going to be dubbed in Japanese...)
Are these people stupid?
Of course if we leave the EU the Germans will refuse to sell us cars.
I suppose you do realise (or perhaps I'm being over optimistic) that, of all major developed countries, the one which by a country mile is most successful at exporting is in the EU?
Why do you ignore this extremely obvious and salient point?
I was just saying that, if one was going to start taking "contributions" into account when awarding benefits, it really doesn't make much sense to target the money at people who are likely to have more money saved up as opposed to people who have nothing saved.
I haven't read it, though, not even for comedic value, so willing to bow to your superior knowledge
How about a slightly different example, an Australian fund buys a UK water utility syphons off billions in dividend payments back to Australia and stuffs its customers (who can go to no other company remember) with increased bills for investment in new facilities. Is that foreign investment?
I haven't had a chance yet to look at the spreadsheet RCS100 pointed me to but I strongly believe that a lot of the Foreign Investment we are supposed to be so keen on is actually harmful. It hurts the UK economy and the UK consumer.
If Kraft had not taken over Cadbury would the UK be better or worse off?
Yes. I got my China GDP growth prediction wrong.
If you want I can do a whole thread on it tomorrow.
You don't see a tiny little problemette with your position?
Or, to put it more accurately, your position is completely and comprehensively demolished by the facts.
You should worry more about how to answer the argument that Germany has been helped by EU membership, which gives it such a big home market. It's a jolly strong argument for the Remain side.
It was because of PB that I took an interest in it, and NAFTA, and Investor State Dispute Settlements.
It is astonishing how much the world has changed. It used to be that we sold a widget to a country, and they paid for it. And we could argue about tariffs.
But take one of my businesses, the outstanding PythonAnywhere. It's a UK limited company, where most of the servers sit in the United States, but where the biggest customers are in Europe and Asia.
How do you deal with tariffs on an electronic product sold from the UK to India, but where the actual work is done on a server in the United States?
And if you allow total free wheeling and dealing, then you allow corporations to domicile in Ireland or the British Virgin Islands and provision services and goods from there, even if no actual work took place there.
It's a recipe for tax avoidance.
I'm not saying I disagree with your goals. They are laudable. But the world is not about shipping widgets on boats anymore. And trade treaties are horrible complex beasties and big countries seek to impose their wills on smaller ones.\
This is not an argument in favour of EU membership. It is merely to point out that Brexit would not mean we would suddenly sign a bunch of free trade agreements with China and the US and the like that did not have onerous implications for our sovereignty.
14/22 have the top team (Leicester City) has the team who are top after 16 games have gone on to win the title and 19/22 have finished top 2. Never has the top side at this point finished outside the top 4.
There is still money to be made...
Maybe this place is too - a commentator on MSNBC - Melissa Harris-Perry - is claiming that Star Wars is racist because Darth Vader dressed in black. MSNBC has absolutely no shame. Does she not remember that Vader's voice was James Earl Jones?
It is -obviously- perfectly possible to prosper and thrive outside the EU. I have absolutely no doubt that we would. Furthermore, I suspect that both us and the EU would benefit from our departure.
Our referendum isn't about German membership it's about ours, you've come up with no facts whatsoever. Mercedes and BMW were selling us cars long before the EU and will continue to do so if we leave. We are net contributors, any free marketeer clearly understands what that means.
My biggest concern is that we vote to leave and then spend five years arguing about what we want on the far side.
As I said before, I personally will not be willing to vote to deny young British citizens benefits if they haven't "contributed", if that is part of the renegotiation.
Still have to go to the Emirates, Man City, old Trafford, whl, anfield, and Stamford bridge haven't they?
My interest is in agriculture (specifically maintenance of genetic diversity within crops and crop relatives). It seems hard to see TPP in anything but negative terms, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
Best get some work done, anyway! Cheers!
Here are the facts: Germany is the developed world's number 1 exporter, by a country mile. It is a member of the EU.
Therefore, even a Kipper should be able to figure out that being a member of the EU is not, of itself, a barrier to trading successfully with the rest of the world, as you seemed to think. There may be other arguments in support of us leaving, but that one fails even the most cursory credibility test.
I'm convinced that the Labour party is imploding after this Trot-takeover.
How long before everyone except Corbo, McMao and Diane Abbot are the only ones left in the party after everyone else has been considered a critic and thus deemed a Tory.
Now I have to go to bed. My daughter is 8 tomorrow
And what on earth do you mean by saying 'you are going to lose'? I'm not arguing in favour of staying. I haven't yet decided how I will vote, it depends mainly on the question of dealing with the dominance of the Eurozone and protecting the City.
I am, however, arguing against nonsense, in this case the suggestion that being in the EU prevents us trading successfully with the rest of the world.
The argument for Out is simple:
The EU project is morphing into the Eurozone project. We have never been committed "ever closer union" believers. Our culture and legal system (and geography) all mean we are never going to be easy members of the EU. We also have a great deal of interests beyond the EU and are less enmeshed in the state-to-state trading of our continental neighbours. Furthermore, the diminution of sovereignty has reached an excessive level.
Britain will prosper outside the EU, and therefore - while we wish our continental neighbours well - we will be doing it from the outside.
As a free marketeer I see no reason why we should pay membership fees in order to trade with other countries. If we leave the EU the Germans will happily continue to sell us cars, if other countries decide they want to buy things from us they will.
Nothing could be more straightforward.
Volkswagen?
As it is, I'll be voting leave. I'm convinced that only an out vote will force EU into action.
Seriously though I think it's going to be a short term hit given the compensation programs they have announced and the aggressive fix schedule. They'll be back.
And our away form is better than our home form. We last lost away in the league in March, 4:3 at Spurs.
Admittingly Chelsea were dogshit tonight, only making an effort after going 2 goals down. Even then they mostly did not seem interested. But one reason that other teams are rubbish is that Claudio has us set up very well in defence.
This is what you wrote:
The EU is a massive hindrance, people who have never worked in business telling wealth creators what to do.
I genuinely can't understand why any free marketeer thinks the EU is a good idea.
That nonsense having been completely demolished, you are now switching to a completely different argument, about membership fees, and for some bizarre reason talking about the Germans selling us cars. Quite what that has to do with whether being in the EU 'is a massive hindrance' is anyone's guess. Quite apart from anything else, they'd still be in the EU. You are arguing against your own point.
Unfortunately, Dave is too chicken to pursue it.
Anyway, bed time.