I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
[Snipped]
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.
In a very real sense "remain" is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much "ever close union" measures are enacted and what they mean for us.
No, not at all. Fallacy no.1 is (you guessed it) a fallacy: I see no reason why combining options is invalid.
it's invalid like this:
1) We'd have control of our borders 2) There'd be no economic risk because we'd join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal.
One of those might be true. Both of them cannot be.
Why not?
Richard is right on this part. I find it hard to believe that the EU wouldn't insist on free movement of people and capital in return for single market access. Though we could then implement the Norway idea and deport people who are unable to show they can support themselves after 90 days.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
Well, I agree. I might even vote for it myself. I certainly wouldn't be too bothered if it won.
That in itself highlights a difficulty: if a non-Leaver is OK with it, is it truly Leave? Would Leavers for whom migration is the main issue agree to campaign on a EEA platform?
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
It's not just the economic question, there is also a very significant issue on the political side. The 'government by fax' jibe is not without substance , and the Leave side are wrong to dismiss it as a Europhile lie. Trying to argue that we'd have as much influence from outside as inside is a hell of a stretch, and not very convincing. The EU is still going to be there on our doorstep, the Euro will still be a much more important currency in world trade than Sterling is, and on any scenario we are going to be subject to massive amounts of EU legislation.
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.
The Government by fax jibe is completely without substance. It was a comment by a fanatically Pro-EU Norwegian minister trying to undermine the Eurosceptic movement in their own country and in the UK. It has no basis in fact at all.
Richard we are still struggling to understand how City-related issues might sway your vote on the EU when you yourself admit that what the PM is aiming for in this area is at best 'small beer' and that an 'acceptable' outcome is unlikely.
If your 'small beer' changes don't materialise, will you vote LEAVE? And why would such 'small beer' changes affect your vote one way or the other?
I'll vote Leave if I think the alternative is better. I have zero emotional attachment to the EU. Equally, I don't have an irrational hatred of it; it is what it is, good in terms of the single market but over-reaching itself in lots of other ways, and with significant structural flaws.
The expected 'small beer' changes will help a bit, especially on Eurozone hegemony, so they'll make staying In slightly better. As I said, it's the alternative which I'm unconvinced by, as yet (and getting less and less convinced as the referendum approaches).
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
My client bank has millions in NS&I Premium Bonds and especially Index linked savings certificates which have been fabulous - until very recently - for example and despite them not now having been on sale for years and having never paid commission.
You are a very sensible man.
My portfolio is chok-full of premium bonds and NS&I index-linkers as well
And I'm still smug about going all cash in November
Retail investment advice is not my area of speciality but my thoughts are these:- [snip] I'm sure @Charles will have views on this, if he's around.
It's a fundamental issue: all of the points that you raise are completely fair ones. I'm not sure that anyone really has the answer, although the recent RDR reforms, although a nightmare to implement, are probably a step in the right direction.
The key problems that I see are:
(1) Most of the money is in the product design and management rather than the retail sales, so the big firms naturally want to be in that segments of the market
(2) This means to the extent that they are in the retail distribution market they will be biased towards in-house products where they can capture all of the value chain
(3) RDR tries to address this by forcing financial advisors to be truly independent (whole of market) or to be truly captive (selling their house products). At least the customer knows what they are getting.
(4) Customers, in the most case, just don't want to pay upfront for advice but, as you say, provider payments/trailing commissions distort incentives for the advisers
I'm not sure what the answer is, frankly. In an ideal world you'd have armies of independent financial advisers whose customers are willing to pay for the value that they add. But I think we are a distance from this - and it's uneconomic to expect the banks to provide free, high quality advice. But I'm still smarting from the roasting I got on here when I suggested that customers' refusal to pay for current account banking was at the root of many of the mis-selling problems of the last few years...
Thank you. I was one of those who gave you a roasting as I recall.
I think the banks now have to build up trust before they can start expecting customers to pay. But there does need to be greater education by regulators and others of customers and that needs to include an understanding of the need to pay and why that puts you in control rather than being seen as a rip off or as an advantage.
At the risk of enraging others, I think the same lesson is needed for the NHS. "Free at the point of use" is fine. But it does mean that the patent is not in control and is therefore at the mercy of the priorities of others. Anything that is free has a cost, which is being borne by someone, usually the person who thinks that they are getting something for nothing. That needs drumming into people from an early age. Then we might get a more intelligent and grown up debate about how to pay for health and financial advice and many other things beside.
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
[Snipped]
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.
In a very real sense "remain" is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much "ever close union" measures are enacted and what they mean for us.
I never make predictions, especially not about the future...
More seriously: who knows how the EU will evolve in the next five years. It could easily fall apart thanks to a flood refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and the rise of politicians such as Mme Le Pen. (Although looking at the TNS poll from November, support for the Euro is pretty high in France - certainly much higher than UK support for the EU.).
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
It's not just the economic question, there is also a very significant issue on the political side. The 'government by fax' jibe is not without substance , and the Leave side are wrong to dismiss it as a Europhile lie. Trying to argue that we'd have as much influence from outside as inside is a hell of a stretch, and not very convincing. The EU is still going to be there on our doorstep, the Euro will still be a much more important currency in world trade than Sterling is, and on any scenario we are going to be subject to massive amounts of EU legislation.
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.
I understand that, but it doesn't sway me. Even the option with the most political integration there is (the EEA) I would take over the EU. We would regain control over VAT, regional policy, external trade, agriculture, fisheries, justice/home affairs and not be subject to ECJ jurisdiction. Our contributions would also be lower.
Open Europe have done a very good summary here, see chapter 5:
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
Actually, the EU surplus with the UK is much exaggerated because of cointainers going via Rotterdam. 1.2m TEUs come into the continent (mostly from China) and are then reshipped to the UK, against only 300,000 going the other way. We need to strip the transhipment figures out to get a true UK-EU trade balance.
Richard we are still struggling to understand how City-related issues might sway your vote on the EU when you yourself admit that what the PM is aiming for in this area is at best 'small beer' and that an 'acceptable' outcome is unlikely.
If your 'small beer' changes don't materialise, will you vote LEAVE? And why would such 'small beer' changes affect your vote one way or the other?
I'll vote Leave if I think the alternative is better. I have zero emotional attachment to the EU. Equally, I don't have an irrational hatred of it; it is what it is, good in terms of the single market but over-reaching itself in lots of other ways, and with significant structural flaws.
The expected 'small beer' changes will help a bit, especially on Eurozone hegemony, so they'll make staying In slightly better. As I said, it's the alternative which I'm unconvinced by, as yet (and getting less and less convinced as the referendum approaches).
I'll ask one last time, on City matters the vote is normally 1vs27 or 2vs26, without restoration of our veto, how will getting any kind of non-EMU protection help us, in any way? We already have an opt out from the ESM. The majority of non-EMU nations will eventually have to join the EMU or are in ERM II and will be in favour of most EMU only measures being implemented across the union. Only us and Sweden have basically got permanent opt-outs, Denmark is part of ERM II.
In or out is the same when it comes to City matters. The only way our situation improves with remain is if we get our FinReg veto back and that just isn't on the table.
So isn't it better to make the EU decision based on non-City matters such as getting out of the CAP and CFP? Both of which are expensive and damaging to our natural environment.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work
Just on this: presumably, though, we would continue to allow people to come to this country without visas. What is to stop someone coming to the UK visa-free and looking for a job?
Nothing and why should it? However, many advanced countries seem to manage quite well without a complete freedom of movement, as indeed did the UK for hundreds of years. The Portuguese Branch of the Llama family was founded by first a foreign gentleman coming to the UK in search of work and then Brits doing the reverse. That was long before either nation was a member of the EEC, let alone the EU.
Some people seem to forget that foreign travel, residence, property ownership and investment was possible, with very little extra form-filling, before 1973.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. (Of course a lot of that argument will be garbage, but I mean it's a killer point in terms of the politics, not the validity).
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
I think news stories like Cologne have a very high degree of cut-through for the reasons you mention.
Yes - they do because those girls could be my daughter. And, frankly, because I - and plenty of others - are fed up to the back teeth with politicians sacrificing women on the altar of their own virtue.
German public opinion has shifted heavily against admitting more asylum seekers (unsurprisingly, especially among women)
Nothing and why should it? However, many advanced countries seem to manage quite well without a complete freedom of movement, as indeed did the UK for hundreds of years. The Portuguese Branch of the Llama family was founded by first a foreign gentleman coming to the UK in search of work and then Brits doing the reverse. That was long before either nation was a member of the EEC, let alone the EU.
Some people seem to forget that foreign travel, residence, property ownership and investment was possible, with very little extra form-filling, before 1973.
Absolutely: and we have had complete freedom of movement between the UK and Ireland in the entire post independence period, for example. (And with other places too.)
My point is that those who suggest that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA would mean the Poles wouldn't be able to come here and work in Pret a Manger are not being entirely accurate.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
''I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. ''
Or you could put that as 'Don;t vote for self determination, which existed in the UK for centuries with fabulous, unparallelled and momentous success'.
''Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about. ''
The Cameroons are having this debate with themselves. The public don't give a t8ss, as they perhaps find out when they attempt to sell it.
The gap between what ruling elites across the west think and what electorates think...well, chasm doesn;t really do it justice.
Someone or something is going to fall into that chasm soon. Democracy, if we're not careful.
There may come a point at which people have to choose between democracy, or EU political integration and mass immigration.
I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
The Swiss have a bilateral deal with the EU rather than being in the EEA, plus their benefits system is completely different to ours. One has to contribute for a minimum of 12 months to be eligible for unemployment insurance at 80% of previous average monthly income for 12 months. It's the kind of system we should be moving towards, but because of that no immigrant immediately qualifies for state support in Switzerland and there is no concept of housing benefit or in-work benefits given that wages are so high (a retail assistant will make around 3250 Fr per month). If we were to model our welfare system on a different nation, Switzerland would be a very good one. High wages, low benefits.
''I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.''
Look at what they are doing in Poland, where they clearly don;t like the result of the election.
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. (Of course a lot of that argument will be garbage, but I mean it's a killer point in terms of the politics, not the validity).
But, it seems to me that the argument also applies the other way. A vote to Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote for continued political integration.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
''Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about. ''
The Cameroons are having this debate with themselves. The public don't give a t8ss, as they perhaps find out when they attempt to sell it.
The gap between what ruling elites across the west think and what electorates think...well, chasm doesn;t really do it justice.
Someone or something is going to fall into that chasm soon. Democracy, if we're not careful.
There may come a point at which people have to choose between democracy, or EU political integration and mass immigration.
I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.
As an aside, I would't look for a rupture in Europe to come from the French. If it comes, it will come from the Italians. (Assuming the Italians are able to find a single sensible right wing party to group around).
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
I think news stories like Cologne have a very high degree of cut-through for the reasons you mention.
Yes - they do because those girls could be my daughter. And, frankly, because I - and plenty of others - are fed up to the back teeth with politicians sacrificing women on the altar of their own virtue.
German public opinion has shifted heavily against admitting more asylum seekers (unsurprisingly, especially among women)
Well, there's a surprise. And was any of this foreseeable? Of course it was. Did anyone point out the obvious issues with letting in large numbers of young men from violent unstable countries and cultures very different from our own. Yes. Lots of people did. But still the politicians went ahead.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
The Swiss have a bilateral deal with the EU rather than being in the EEA, plus their benefits system is completely different to ours. One has to contribute for a minimum of 12 months to be eligible for unemployment insurance at 80% of previous average monthly income for 12 months. It's the kind of system we should be moving towards, but because of that no immigrant immediately qualifies for state support in Switzerland and there is no concept of housing benefit or in-work benefits given that wages are so high (a retail assistant will make around 3250 Fr per month). If we were to model our welfare system on a different nation, Switzerland would be a very good one. High wages, low benefits.
Agreed 100%. Irrespective of all other issues, changing our tax and benefit system to actually encourage work rather than discourage it should be politicians number one priority.
But, it seems to me that the argument also applies the other way. A vote to Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote for continued political integration.
That's certainly a good way for the Leave side to try to frame it. But, it's a bit abstract, appealing more to the already converted, compared with the crude-but-effective 'leaving will risk millions of jobs' line.
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. (Of course a lot of that argument will be garbage, but I mean it's a killer point in terms of the politics, not the validity).
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
Nothing and why should it? However, many advanced countries seem to manage quite well without a complete freedom of movement, as indeed did the UK for hundreds of years. The Portuguese Branch of the Llama family was founded by first a foreign gentleman coming to the UK in search of work and then Brits doing the reverse. That was long before either nation was a member of the EEC, let alone the EU.
Some people seem to forget that foreign travel, residence, property ownership and investment was possible, with very little extra form-filling, before 1973.
Absolutely: and we have had complete freedom of movement between the UK and Ireland in the entire post independence period, for example. (And with other places too.)
My point is that those who suggest that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA would mean the Poles wouldn't be able to come here and work in Pret a Manger are not being entirely accurate.
There is one small but vital difference, Mr. Robert. We could previously had we so wanted decide that we, as a state, did not want a particular Portuguese Llama in our country or to limit the number of Portuguese Llamas. We could even chuck out a particular individual if we did not like him. The law would take its course but it would be made in Parliament and implemented by UK courts.
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. (Of course a lot of that argument will be garbage, but I mean it's a killer point in terms of the politics, not the validity).
"Project Fear"
I would note that (currently) the arguments on here between In and Out are (mostly) a lot more civilised than those involving certain ScotsNat supporters...
But there does need to be greater education by regulators and others of customers and that needs to include an understanding of the need to pay and why that puts you in control rather than being seen as a rip off or as an advantage.
So far as I can tell my banks/credit card cos get market research data on where I shop and so forth. It must be worth something as I borrow at 0% and receive interest & cashback at 5% with my most used credit and debit cards respectively. I can't see where I would gain value by using a bank account such as Barclays where there is no interest but one must pay for the account.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
Actually, the EU surplus with the UK is much exaggerated because of cointainers going via Rotterdam. 1.2m TEUs come into the continent (mostly from China) and are then reshipped to the UK, against only 300,000 going the other way. We need to strip the transhipment figures out to get a true UK-EU trade balance.
That works both ways. A significant proportion of the UK exports to the rest of the world go via the EU and are counted as exports to the EU.
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
I think it is a killer point because Leave's great weakness is the 'Don't vote for a risky leap into the abyss' argument. (Of course a lot of that argument will be garbage, but I mean it's a killer point in terms of the politics, not the validity).
"Project Fear"
Project Fear will be used because it works.
Simply giving a name like that won't stop it from working.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
Actually, the EU surplus with the UK is much exaggerated because of cointainers going via Rotterdam. 1.2m TEUs come into the continent (mostly from China) and are then reshipped to the UK, against only 300,000 going the other way. We need to strip the transhipment figures out to get a true UK-EU trade balance.
That works both ways. A significant proportion of the UK exports to the rest of the world go via the EU and are counted as exports to the EU.
I know: that's why I have the 1.2m via Rotterdam to the UK, and 300,000 going to the other way.
The race in Iowa is tightening, if you look at the average of the latest polls Cruz seems to have peaked and now is falling, but Trump isn't the main beneficiary from those leaving Cruz. It's the evangelical vote that is the on/off factor in Iowa, these polls might signal they will turn the off switch on Cruz soon.
I think I was right to reserve from betting on Cruz until I was sure he wasn't a flavour of the month, but who is going to be the next flavour of the month?
There are not many conservative alternatives to Cruz left, there is Carson (been there done that factor though), there is Paul (a bit of too much of a libertarian), and the yesterday's men of Huckabee and Santorum.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
The Swiss have a bilateral deal with the EU rather than being in the EEA, plus their benefits system is completely different to ours. One has to contribute for a minimum of 12 months to be eligible for unemployment insurance at 80% of previous average monthly income for 12 months. It's the kind of system we should be moving towards, but because of that no immigrant immediately qualifies for state support in Switzerland and there is no concept of housing benefit or in-work benefits given that wages are so high (a retail assistant will make around 3250 Fr per month). If we were to model our welfare system on a different nation, Switzerland would be a very good one. High wages, low benefits.
Agreed 100%. Irrespective of all other issues, changing our tax and benefit system to actually encourage work rather than discourage it should be politicians number one priority.
I've been doing some reading on the differences between JSA and universal credit. Not much really in terms of money, but one thing stuck out to me. People on JSA are able to get 50% off public transport and it can be carried through into the first three months of work. They have removed that with UC. For people living in zone 6 in London the cost of travel for the first three months of work after being on JSA would be £115 per month, for UC it is £227 per month. Surely after a period of unemployment the government should be making sure the cost of going to work is low to ensure people don't get discouraged. Especially since most people coming off long term unemployment are going to be doing low or unskilled work with low or minimum pay rates.
Corbynism sweeping the nation...doubling, trebling, quadrupling or even quintupling membership at local party level, will national polling going down the tubes..
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
Actually, the EU surplus with the UK is much exaggerated because of cointainers going via Rotterdam. 1.2m TEUs come into the continent (mostly from China) and are then reshipped to the UK, against only 300,000 going the other way. We need to strip the transhipment figures out to get a true UK-EU trade balance.
That works both ways. A significant proportion of the UK exports to the rest of the world go via the EU and are counted as exports to the EU.
I know: that's why I have the 1.2m via Rotterdam to the UK, and 300,000 going to the other way.
I am not sure anyone has been able to actually put proper numbers to the value of the goods though. Certainly none of the estimates I have seen from either side have been able to. If we are importing 1.2 million containers of 'made in china' tat but exporting machine tools (to take an extreme example to make the point) then the number of containers is pretty much meaningless.
I've been doing some reading on the differences between JSA and universal credit. Not much really in terms of money, but one thing stuck out to me. People on JSA are able to get 50% off public transport and it can be carried through into the first three months of work. They have removed that with UC. For people living in zone 6 in London the cost of travel for the first three months of work after being on JSA would be £115 per month, for UC it is £227 per month. Surely after a period of unemployment the government should be making sure the cost of going to work is low to ensure people don't get discouraged. Especially since most people coming off long term unemployment are going to be doing low or unskilled work with low or minimum pay rates.
Absolutely: it's so important to get people into work. Having a routine is good for your emotional health, and your general wellbeing. You are less likely to be sick. It's better for the prospects for your children. And the more time you spend working, the less likely you are to be unemployed in the future.
Our systems should be designed around encouraging people to work. But we have the most f*cked up benefits system in the world, that seems designed to encourage us to pay Brits not to work, while importing non-Brits to work.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Well on (2) which seems to be your bugbear:
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe - Europe sells more to the UK than it buys - It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal - Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
Actually, the EU surplus with the UK is much exaggerated because of cointainers going via Rotterdam. 1.2m TEUs come into the continent (mostly from China) and are then reshipped to the UK, against only 300,000 going the other way. We need to strip the transhipment figures out to get a true UK-EU trade balance.
That works both ways. A significant proportion of the UK exports to the rest of the world go via the EU and are counted as exports to the EU.
I know: that's why I have the 1.2m via Rotterdam to the UK, and 300,000 going to the other way.
I am not sure anyone has been able to actually put proper numbers to the value of the goods though. Certainly none of the estimates I have seen from either side have been able to. If we are importing 1.2 million containers of 'made in china' tat but exporting machine tools (to take an extreme example to make the point) then the number of containers is pretty much meaningless.
You're right. There's no values placed on the containers, and one would hope that our exports tend to be higher value than China's!
Yes but the credibility of those spreading the fear had never been lower. After November and New Year's Eve, who believes European media or ruling politicians any more?
''Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about. ''
The Cameroons are having this debate with themselves. The public don't give a t8ss, as they perhaps find out when they attempt to sell it.
The gap between what ruling elites across the west think and what electorates think...well, chasm doesn;t really do it justice.
Someone or something is going to fall into that chasm soon. Democracy, if we're not careful.
There may come a point at which people have to choose between democracy, or EU political integration and mass immigration.
I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.
As an aside, I would't look for a rupture in Europe to come from the French. If it comes, it will come from the Italians. (Assuming the Italians are able to find a single sensible right wing party to group around).
What that tells me is that Estonians are the most spontaneous Eurozone dwellers.
Mr. Taffys, people who use broadcast media for their news are probably still unaware (even more than us) of the true scale of what happened. Mr. T has mentioned various covered up instances of similar behaviour, and those are only the ones we know about.
I'm not sure sufficient people know about the Cologne cover up for it to make a material difference.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
''Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about. ''
The Cameroons are having this debate with themselves. The public don't give a t8ss, as they perhaps find out when they attempt to sell it.
The gap between what ruling elites across the west think and what electorates think...well, chasm doesn;t really do it justice.
Someone or something is going to fall into that chasm soon. Democracy, if we're not careful.
There may come a point at which people have to choose between democracy, or EU political integration and mass immigration.
I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.
If they do that, democracy has already lost.
One of the issues for me is this: there is an assumption that democracy is the default mode for Europe, that democracy has deep roots in European political culture and that therefore ignoring the people's will in the pursuit of some greater and nobler cause (helping refugees, making the EU work better, even sensible integrationist policies) will not degrade Europe's fundamental democratic nature.
But I think that assumption is questionable and that ignoring what people want and say will degrade democracy. And European history should have taught us that if democracy has shallow roots and is not defended and strengthened then it can easily fall apart when a crisis happens. We have seen some of this with the euro and Greece. We are seeing it again with the migration crisis.
We should not be so careless about democracy in Europe. Many countries in Europe have been democracies for much less than I have been alive. That is not a deep tap root. And it takes more than one generation to really embed the attitudes of mind and beliefs which are really needed to sustain democracy in the bad times. Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.
Well, you could argue the toss about when he threw a spear into Cleitus, or whether killing Parmenio and his sons was necessary, but they're certainly defensible actions.
If the Romans, who had a pathological fear and loathing of kingship after Tarquin the Proud, could return to monarchy (imperial rather than royal, but still) then nations of Europe certainly could.
And let's not forget the EU forced government changes in Greece and Italy. As well as repeatedly asking the same referendum question until the people do as Brussels wills.
Corbynism sweeping the nation...doubling, trebling, quadrupling or even quintupling membership at local party level, will national polling going down the tubes..
Labour gain Colchester and Bath at the next general election
Even recognising that a certain jump in membership might be normal in response to unexpected defeat - we need to fight harder, comrades!, that sort of thing - and that those joining are not necessarily reflective of the wider public which may be, and by many indicators seems to be, turning from the party, that has to be pretty encouraging for them. It isn't just a tiny tiny group of the current membership driving change, it is more significant, and that would give hope that, despite current indications, it will not appeal to the wider public.
But, it seems to me that the argument also applies the other way. A vote to Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote for continued political integration.
That's certainly a good way for the Leave side to try to frame it. But, it's a bit abstract, appealing more to the already converted, compared with the crude-but-effective 'leaving will risk millions of jobs' line.
But, it seems to me that the argument also applies the other way. A vote to Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote for continued political integration.
That's certainly a good way for the Leave side to try to frame it. But, it's a bit abstract, appealing more to the already converted, compared with the crude-but-effective 'leaving will risk millions of jobs' line.
So saying that staying in the EU will result in even more integration is abstract, even when there's decades of history showing it to be fact and on-the-record statements by EU leaders that it will happen, guaranteeing we are affected if we stay, but scaremongering as to what might happen if we Leave with something worse than the worst case scenario isn't?
Even recognising that a certain jump in membership might be normal in response to unexpected defeat - we need to fight harder, comrades!, that sort of thing - and that those joining are not necessarily reflective of the wider public which may be, and by many indicators seems to be, turning from the party, that has to be pretty encouraging for them. It isn't just a tiny tiny group of the current membership driving change, it is more significant, and that would give hope that, despite current indications, it will not appeal to the wider public.
It's not at all encouraging. It's as if the Tories had lost, elected Peter Bone on an Out-at-all-costs platform and seen membership go through the roof as the original UKIPpers returned.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
I am surprised that this is news. Employers have been reading employees work email since forever, no?
Most sensible employers will stop employees using systems like Yahoo and others. Of course, anything you write on your employer's email or other communications systems can be monitored by the employer though most are sensible e.g. not concerned with your email to your husband about turning up on time for the school play.
The old IBM sales tactic: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Works a treat, especially when the alternative side can't agree on what they are proposing.
How did that work out for IBM?
Extremely well, until they screwed up.
When you rely on fear and inertia rather than innovation and quality product, you are bound to screw up eventually. Whence IBM, so the EU.
Ultimately, we all screw up. It'll happen to Google, Amazon and Apple it time.
It's not just political careers that end in failure.
I think that there are two separate dynamics - the natural maturing of both a sector (IT, say) and the corporation on the one hand, and the failure to be adaptive and innovative within the context of that maturity.
There is no way that a cooper could compete with Michelin, because of the way that sector has matured past wagon wheels. But there is no particular reason that a corporate cooper could not have adapted its core competences to another business - either related to woodworking or to supplying the round bits on vehicles.
PS, of those you list, I would argue that Apple is doing the better job of demonstrating adaptability.
My client bank has millions in NS&I Premium Bonds and especially Index linked savings certificates which have been fabulous - until very recently - for example and despite them not now having been on sale for years and having never paid commission.
You are a very sensible man.
My portfolio is chok-full of premium bonds and NS&I index-linkers as well
And I'm still smug about going all cash in November
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
It is. It also has precedence in American history (the Chinese were banned for decades) and arguably wouldn't violate the First Amendment since that applies to citizens and not people outside America who haven't migrated yet. However I suspect nowadays SCOTUS would find it does violate the First Amendment.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Trump would probably have to change the US constitution before banning Muslim immigration. I doubt if he could do that, even if he won a Presidential election.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Trump would probably have to change the US constitution before banning Muslim immigration. I doubt if he could do that, even if he won a Presidential election.
It might go way of the 27th amendment which took over 200 years to ratify
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Trump would probably have to change the US constitution before banning Muslim immigration. I doubt if he could do that, even if he won a Presidential election.
Would it definitely? Previous case law I believe would be that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens outside of the USA. See for example the Chinese Exclusion Act cases.
That was 19th century but I can't think of any 20th let alone 21st century parallels to what Trump is proposing.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
I am surprised that this is news. Employers have been reading employees work email since forever, no?
Most sensible employers will stop employees using systems like Yahoo and others. Of course, anything you write on your employer's email or other communications systems can be monitored by the employer though most are sensible e.g. not concerned with your email to your husband about turning up on time for the school play.
Yebbut what about more important matters like using pb.com during office hours?
"Why the Brexit referendum will be swung by the horrific events in Cologne. After the sexual assaults in Germany, the EU referendum is about nothing less than the safety and security of British women - and that means we must get out of Europe"
She may well be proved right - it will be interesting to see how the next batch of polls reflect people's concerns. I will be surprised if they don't reflect a marked shift in opinion.
I've been doing some reading on the differences between JSA and universal credit. Not much really in terms of money, but one thing stuck out to me. People on JSA are able to get 50% off public transport and it can be carried through into the first three months of work. They have removed that with UC. For people living in zone 6 in London the cost of travel for the first three months of work after being on JSA would be £115 per month, for UC it is £227 per month. Surely after a period of unemployment the government should be making sure the cost of going to work is low to ensure people don't get discouraged. Especially since most people coming off long term unemployment are going to be doing low or unskilled work with low or minimum pay rates.
Absolutely: it's so important to get people into work. Having a routine is good for your emotional health, and your general wellbeing. You are less likely to be sick. It's better for the prospects for your children. And the more time you spend working, the less likely you are to be unemployed in the future.
Our systems should be designed around encouraging people to work. But we have the most f*cked up benefits system in the world, that seems designed to encourage us to pay Brits not to work, while importing non-Brits to work.
Utterly bizarre.
Unfortunately our benefits system is not fit for purpose after decades of drift and neglect. When the rest of Europe was moving to partially or wholly contributory unemployment insurance Labour were proudly boasting and telling the world about our universal welfare system. The coalition did little to change it and now Universal Credit is just as bad with some in-work and some out-of-work elements as well as a continuation of stupid stuff like housing benefits and top ups.
UC may be a single payment but it is still a nightmarish web of means testing form filling. I would love to see us move to the Swiss system, even if it is only for new entrants, as in - from this day the benefits system is going to be contributory and will require a minimum of 12 months contribution of NI to qualify for 12 months of support at 80% of your previous wage. From that day immigration of non-working people, people who work part time to claim working tax credits and people who have loads of children to claim child tax credits would not be able to make it here. They would have to go back after expending their cash unless they found a job that paid them enough to cover their rent, council tax, childcare costs and living expenses. People who come to do minimum wage jobs then get a bunch of WTC would find themselves bankrupt within months.
Comments
However, it is also important to recognise that open(ish) is not the same as open (absolutely).
That in itself highlights a difficulty: if a non-Leaver is OK with it, is it truly Leave? Would Leavers for whom migration is the main issue agree to campaign on a EEA platform?
The expected 'small beer' changes will help a bit, especially on Eurozone hegemony, so they'll make staying In slightly better. As I said, it's the alternative which I'm unconvinced by, as yet (and getting less and less convinced as the referendum approaches).
- The current terms of the agreement favour Europe
- Europe sells more to the UK than it buys
- It is therefore in Europe's interest to have a deal rather than no deal
- Consequently there is likely to be a negotiation that results in a deal that is better than the current set up for the UK (albeit still less than perfect)
Europe will not walk away - in exactly the same way that rUK would have had sensible negotiations with iScot in the event that the SNP had won.
My portfolio is chok-full of premium bonds and NS&I index-linkers as well
And I'm still smug about going all cash in November
I think the banks now have to build up trust before they can start expecting customers to pay. But there does need to be greater education by regulators and others of customers and that needs to include an understanding of the need to pay and why that puts you in control rather than being seen as a rip off or as an advantage.
At the risk of enraging others, I think the same lesson is needed for the NHS. "Free at the point of use" is fine. But it does mean that the patent is not in control and is therefore at the mercy of the priorities of others. Anything that is free has a cost, which is being borne by someone, usually the person who thinks that they are getting something for nothing. That needs drumming into people from an early age. Then we might get a more intelligent and grown up debate about how to pay for health and financial advice and many other things beside.
More seriously: who knows how the EU will evolve in the next five years. It could easily fall apart thanks to a flood refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and the rise of politicians such as Mme Le Pen. (Although looking at the TNS poll from November, support for the Euro is pretty high in France - certainly much higher than UK support for the EU.).
Open Europe have done a very good summary here, see chapter 5:
http://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150507-Open-Europe-What-If-Report-Final-Digital-Copy.pdf
You keep repeating this as if the range of ambiguity and options is some sort of killer point for Remain.
I appreciate you might think it is but, for me, it's an exciting opportunity where all are better than our current arrangement.
In or out is the same when it comes to City matters. The only way our situation improves with remain is if we get our FinReg veto back and that just isn't on the table.
So isn't it better to make the EU decision based on non-City matters such as getting out of the CAP and CFP? Both of which are expensive and damaging to our natural environment.
Some people seem to forget that foreign travel, residence, property ownership and investment was possible, with very little extra form-filling, before 1973.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/12/germans-attitudes-immigration-harden-following-col/
My point is that those who suggest that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA would mean the Poles wouldn't be able to come here and work in Pret a Manger are not being entirely accurate.
Or you could put that as 'Don;t vote for self determination, which existed in the UK for centuries with fabulous, unparallelled and momentous success'.
I do wonder if the current political establishments would use force to hold onto power if it looked as if parties like FN or the Swedish Democrats were about to win an election.
Look at what they are doing in Poland, where they clearly don;t like the result of the election.
Mr. Taffys, that's the way Leave should argue.
Vote for self-determination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Movement_of_Citizens_Directive
https://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/
I'm not certain about the Benefits question, but it's somewhat academic anyway because Cameron will get agreement on that, I am sure.
Ropes and lampposts.
4/6 Clinton
5 Obama
5 Giuliani
8 Romney
10 Huckabee
14 Ron Paul
25 Edwards
33 McCain
So, Clinton was a stronger favourite at this stage 8 years ago than she is now.
For the Republicans, obv.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-13/employers-can-check-employees-private-messages-judges-rule/
I can't see where I would gain value by using a bank account such as Barclays where there is no interest but one must pay for the account.
Works a treat, especially when the alternative side can't agree on what they are proposing.
Leader’s hopes of remoulding the party boosted as Guardian survey shows surge in membership, huge support and shift to left
http://gu.com/p/4fnc7?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Simply giving a name like that won't stop it from working.
New Iowa DMR poll:
Cruz 25 -6
Trump 22 +1
Rubio 12 +2
Carson 11 -2
Paul 5 +2
Bush 4 -2
Christie 3 0
Huckabee 3 0
Kasich 2 0
Fiorina 2 +1
Santorum 1 0
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/13/iowa-poll-cruz-holds-3-point-lead-trump-attacks/78684344/
The race in Iowa is tightening, if you look at the average of the latest polls Cruz seems to have peaked and now is falling, but Trump isn't the main beneficiary from those leaving Cruz.
It's the evangelical vote that is the on/off factor in Iowa, these polls might signal they will turn the off switch on Cruz soon.
I think I was right to reserve from betting on Cruz until I was sure he wasn't a flavour of the month, but who is going to be the next flavour of the month?
There are not many conservative alternatives to Cruz left, there is Carson (been there done that factor though), there is Paul (a bit of too much of a libertarian), and the yesterday's men of Huckabee and Santorum.
Our systems should be designed around encouraging people to work. But we have the most f*cked up benefits system in the world, that seems designed to encourage us to pay Brits not to work, while importing non-Brits to work.
Utterly bizarre.
Yes but the credibility of those spreading the fear had never been lower. After November and New Year's Eve, who believes European media or ruling politicians any more?
Good column from Paul Krishnamurty (twitter.com/paulmotty) - I've taken a bit of 650.0 on Ryan: http://politicalgambler.com/trump_v_sanders_betting_odds/
It's not just political careers that end in failure.
I'm not sure sufficient people know about the Cologne cover up for it to make a material difference.
One of the issues for me is this: there is an assumption that democracy is the default mode for Europe, that democracy has deep roots in European political culture and that therefore ignoring the people's will in the pursuit of some greater and nobler cause (helping refugees, making the EU work better, even sensible integrationist policies) will not degrade Europe's fundamental democratic nature.
But I think that assumption is questionable and that ignoring what people want and say will degrade democracy. And European history should have taught us that if democracy has shallow roots and is not defended and strengthened then it can easily fall apart when a crisis happens. We have seen some of this with the euro and Greece. We are seeing it again with the migration crisis.
We should not be so careless about democracy in Europe. Many countries in Europe have been democracies for much less than I have been alive. That is not a deep tap root. And it takes more than one generation to really embed the attitudes of mind and beliefs which are really needed to sustain democracy in the bad times. Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.
Well, you could argue the toss about when he threw a spear into Cleitus, or whether killing Parmenio and his sons was necessary, but they're certainly defensible actions.
If the Romans, who had a pathological fear and loathing of kingship after Tarquin the Proud, could return to monarchy (imperial rather than royal, but still) then nations of Europe certainly could.
And let's not forget the EU forced government changes in Greece and Italy. As well as repeatedly asking the same referendum question until the people do as Brussels wills.
Got it.
It'd be like me referring to local property owners in my constituency Conservative Party meetings as 'my liege'.
There is no way that a cooper could compete with Michelin, because of the way that sector has matured past wagon wheels. But there is no particular reason that a corporate cooper could not have adapted its core competences to another business - either related to woodworking or to supplying the round bits on vehicles.
PS, of those you list, I would argue that Apple is doing the better job of demonstrating adaptability.
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Plus from what I've read, Trump's ban would be unconstitutional
I have to admit I greet some of my friends in a way which would fit the stereotypes many on the left have about the Tories.
It is. And peaceful protest against such idiocy would also be democracy.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
That said, he's two and a half leagues above the clownish communists currently leading Labour.
@GregHands: Once again at #PMQs today no LibDem questioner and only 2 out of their 8 MPs even there. I think they need to show more commitment.
That was 19th century but I can't think of any 20th let alone 21st century parallels to what Trump is proposing.
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
"Why the Brexit referendum will be swung by the horrific events in Cologne.
After the sexual assaults in Germany, the EU referendum is about nothing less than the safety and security of British women - and that means we must get out of Europe"
She may well be proved right - it will be interesting to see how the next batch of polls reflect people's concerns. I will be surprised if they don't reflect a marked shift in opinion.
That's why it's weird.
UC may be a single payment but it is still a nightmarish web of means testing form filling. I would love to see us move to the Swiss system, even if it is only for new entrants, as in - from this day the benefits system is going to be contributory and will require a minimum of 12 months contribution of NI to qualify for 12 months of support at 80% of your previous wage. From that day immigration of non-working people, people who work part time to claim working tax credits and people who have loads of children to claim child tax credits would not be able to make it here. They would have to go back after expending their cash unless they found a job that paid them enough to cover their rent, council tax, childcare costs and living expenses. People who come to do minimum wage jobs then get a bunch of WTC would find themselves bankrupt within months.