On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
I may be wrong but I don't think all that many people in the Commonwealth care about Britain's foreign policy in the 1960s and early 70s. A far more significant factor is that the Commonwealth is geographically diverse and has nothing meaningful to hold it together. Its members have gone their own ways over the past four of five decades and apart from the historic aspects, view Britain little differently from any other country.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
No, I would not be voting for his deal, it is a despicable farrago of fibs.
I'd vote to REMAIN in the EU solely on the - selfish - basis that leaving would damage London, and the London property market (ergo my personal wealth) and the unselfish basis that Brexit gives the Scot Nats one last but very good chance - in this generation - of breaking up the UK.
These considerations have nothing to do with Cameron's squalid little "deal". The deal is merely the reason I now despise him.
Sean, 1) Let me address the 'selfishly - London' issue. I understand you are concerned about London house prices? But you have daughters, don't you? Sooner or later they will want somewhere to live - it does no good if they can't afford a house because the Thomas family wealth is all tied up in your flat. I take no pleasure from the increases in house prices in my home town (it happens outside London too) because one day my daughters will want somewhere to live; my paper wealth is increasing at the expense of theirs.
2) Unselfishly - Scotland. Fair enough, I couldn't give a stuff whether Scotland stays or goes, personally - it'll still be there, it's not going to float off into the North Sea. I'll be just as Scottish if there is a different constitutional arrangement. Although I accept there are some strategic issues, not least early warning of Russian approaches across the Arctic.
3) I always knew David Cameron was a Remainer, and he has made no attempt to pretend otherwise, He harbours the (in my view) erroneous belief that the EU can be reformed and made more favourable to Britain, but he believes that Britain is better off in the EU. Fair enough - I disagree. He's delivered - in my view - the best deal possible, which is practically no deal at all. Niccolo Machiavelli could have hardly done better in the face of European intransigence that the EU is fine as it is and general grumpiness towards Britain. But he has at least delivered (or appears to be doing so) a referendum, something which hasn't happened in my lifetime. I'll be voting Leave - it would have taken something truly remarkable to have persuaded me otherwise: nothing I've seen in the past has persuaded me that the EU is anything other than an unmitigated crock of shit - but I'm not blaming David Cameron for the paucity of the offer, I blame the EU itself.
Simply pointing out that the founding principle of 'ever closer union' is in itself a crock of merde with as little substance as much of what Cameron has negotiated ought to be worth something to you!
Its utterly and completely worthless. Its like saying that by changing the name of an act of parliament the law will actually be any different. Critically we are still completely subject to the ECJ which is mandated to interpret decisions in a way that promotes ever closer union. We are also still subject to acquis communautaire, as the EU continues to develop laws (federalist in intent or otherwise) we will continue to be bound by them. Its a sham, if we are in the EU, we are part of ever closer union.
More reasons why our being independent is completely impossible and out of the question. Why bother with a parliament at all?
Being independent along the lines of the Swiss would be an option if the populace really demanded it. It's certainly not something the British political class is predisposed towards offering.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
Washington would view our leaving as a lurch towards 'nativism' and would see us as the black sheep of the Western world. Their most important European alliance is with Germany and they would not be willing to indulge our eccentric ideas at the expense of their strategic interests.
They would, and they'd be extremely angry, but it wouldn't stop them from tying the UK into a legislative framework that was in their interests as the dominant trading power.
Right now I am still entirely undecided. If I do vote REMAIN (because, selfishly, London, and, unselfishly, Scotland) I will do it with shuddering regret, but then I shall then dedicate the rest of my life to loathing David Cameron and doing my best to see that his historical reputation is worse than Heath's. What a nasty little c*nt of a man he is. Just a liar. A sneering liar.
Yuu used to call him Gaylord Ponceyboots back in the day before you went all doe-eyed over him.
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
I think this ridiculous "deal" will go down quite badly with a lot of Tory MPs, though many will pay lip service, as the careerists they are (cf Nick Palmer)
But there is a huge prize here for any well-known Tory willing to seize the torch and lead the LEAVERS, even if they are likely to lose. He will then be seen as a man (or woman) of integrity, and will surely reap the benefits post IN vote, as we all get buyer's remorse, and the Tories turn on the Cameron wing of the party.
This is Boris's moment. He should man up, lead the LEAVE campaign, and take it to honourable defeat. He would then get the sympathy vote, as the SNP did after NO.
Conversely giving this silly deal enthusiastic support could be longterm poison for Tory leadership contenders.
What are betting implications for this? Back Johnson, May, Patel? Short Osborne?
Not Johnson. May perhaps. Osborne yes. Patel yes.
It's quite hard to see how the next leadership election isn't contested by a Remainer and a Leaver, though not necessarily on those arguments.
Theresa May is the only plausible candidate who will not be giving up the chance of ever securing a Great Office Of State if she leads Leave, because she's already had one for 6 years.
It'll be Osborne v May for my money; there's a world of difference between electing a new Tory leader and electing an immediate PM, especially given that it's a membership-only vote.
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
I think this ridiculous "deal" will go down quite badly with a lot of Tory MPs, though many will pay lip service, as the careerists they are (cf Nick Palmer)
But there is a huge prize here for any well-known Tory willing to seize the torch and lead the LEAVERS, even if they are likely to lose. He will then be seen as a man (or woman) of integrity, and will surely reap the benefits post IN vote, as we all get buyer's remorse, and the Tories turn on the Cameron wing of the party.
This is Boris's moment. He should man up, lead the LEAVE campaign, and take it to honourable defeat. He would then get the sympathy vote, as the SNP did after NO.
Conversely giving this silly deal enthusiastic support could be longterm poison for Tory leadership contenders.
What are betting implications for this? Back Johnson, May, Patel? Short Osborne?
Not Johnson. May perhaps. Osborne yes. Patel yes.
I backed May earlier at 12s, tried to bet Patel at 50s w Coral and its good in a nicker!
Its members have gone their own ways over the past four of five decades and apart from the historic aspects, view Britain little differently from any other country.
Well, not quite like any other country. Cecil Rhodes intended his scholars to help 'extend British rule throughout the world...the consolidation of the Empire, the restoration of Anglo-Saxon unity...'
The principal argument in favour of Remain here seems to be that we're doomed, regardless of how we vote, so we might as well as stick with the status quo.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
As opposed to a hyper religious populace hellbent on forcing their own rule of law over us?
Eire? Otherwise what has the EU got to do with your remark. The vacuum at the heart of the phobes is plastered all over your comment.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
Washington would view our leaving as a lurch towards 'nativism' and would see us as the black sheep of the Western world. Their most important European alliance is with Germany and they would not be willing to indulge our eccentric ideas at the expense of their strategic interests.
Really?
And Germany isn't a member of the Five Eyes intelligence agreement.
And Germany would need to make big constitutional changes to become a warrior power. They were in Afghanistan (still?) but were not allowed out at night.
''The principal argument in favour of Remain here seems to be that we're doomed, regardless of how we vote, so we might as well as stick with the status quo. ''
Not doomed, but powerless. We are powerless to change the terms of our membership.Voting out will leave us powerless in a different way. Joining NAFTA would render us powerless in yet another different way.
We're just captain powerless, whether its in, out or NAFTA, and the notion of anything else is completely impossible.
Always bemused by the suggestion that leaving the EU would mean we have to join something else. I assume we would leave and then negotiate an arrangement with the EU that would satisfy ours and their interests. The idea of the EU is a good one, but it isn't the loose confederation working on areas of common interest I would like so I am Leave. Frankly these discussions bore me silly and show why I don't pay attention (and I suspect reflect most people there I expect). No surprise Cameron's negotiations were all just hot air.
Interesting Rubio sucked up all the non insurgent candidate votes, doesn't bode well he still came third. Trump will be looking to squeeze Rand (impressive 5th), Carson and Cruz. Now one of his weakest states is out of the way lets see how it goes, only dropped one delegate at the end of the day.
Major offensive begun around Aleppo, SAA on the verge of lifting the siege of Nubl and Zahraa. Rebel supply lines to Turkey are now cut. Very impressive intervention by Russia.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Quite.
And I'm not sure why the latter sentiment expressed in Tim's post, albeit in jest, can fly here when someone expressing any pro-Russia sentiment whatever (let alone suggesting the end of our country to be assimilated into another) is denounced as a traitor. The US is not Britain. They're not (as a political entity - I love people from the US) even particularly friendly toward us. They even had a plan to instigate a war of conquest with us until World War II effectively did the job for them.
Boring boring boring. Look there are the rockets, take the next one off the planet.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
No, I would not be voting for his deal, it is a despicable farrago of fibs.
I'd vote to REMAIN in the EU solely on the - selfish - basis that leaving would damage London, and the London property market (ergo my personal wealth) and the unselfish basis that Brexit gives the Scot Nats one last but very good chance - in this generation - of breaking up the UK.
These considerations have nothing to do with Cameron's squalid little "deal". The deal is merely the reason I now despise him.
I'll be voting Leave - it would have taken something truly remarkable to have persuaded me otherwise: nothing I've seen in the past has persuaded me that the EU is anything other than an unmitigated crock of shit - but I'm not blaming David Cameron for the paucity of the offer, I blame the EU itself.
It's quite possible to despise and blame the European Union AND David Cameron, and that is precisely what I shall be doing. He should have been honest and said Meh, I can't get much of a deal, but I think where we are is just about OK, anyway. Take it or leave it.
Instead he's selling a lunchbox full of shit like its a tasting menu at Le Gavroche. Deliberately lying to the voters, and on absolutely fundamental issues. He's Blair all over again.
I look forward to your publishers selling your next book as "It's not as good as the previous one, and the title is a crowdsourced pile of wank, but what can you do? Take it or leave it."
If that quality of campaign continues in the next few states, maybe Cruz has got a better chance than we think.
I've been backing Cruz, Rubio and Trump today ! (Too much green on others).
At some point sadly I'll need to reback Jeb Bush, but I'm not pulling that move at 22s.
How did you come out of Iowa?
I was badly bruised by the Rubio surge although it's still not an overall loss but I know you went longer on Cruz.
Not much longer, I'll double check my position at home.
The GOP book has lost about £120 of value though I think.
Took some profits on the night on Clinton/Cruz though (Clinton was more or less a wash anyone mind)
Cruz 28/Trump 27/Rubio 18 would have been alot better !
Half panic backed Rubio at 5.0 for £100 for POTUS after I stared too long at the screen pondering the same on his GOPship at 2.60. (Which was a good move actually it seems)
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Quite.
And I'm not sure why the latter sentiment expressed in Tim's post, albeit in jest, can fly here when someone expressing any pro-Russia sentiment whatever (let alone suggesting the end of our country to be assimilated into another) is denounced as a traitor. The US is not Britain. They're not (as a political entity - I love people from the US) even particularly friendly toward us. They even had a plan to instigate a war of conquest with us until World War II effectively did the job for them.
Boring boring boring. Look there are the rockets, take the next one off the planet.
You seem a touch incoherent this afternoon... started on the port a bit early ?
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
As opposed to a hyper religious populace hellbent on forcing their own rule of law over us?
Eire? Otherwise what has the EU got to do with your remark. The vacuum at the heart of the phobes is plastered all over your comment.
Point was raised about a cultural affinity with the US, what about the cultural clashes going on all over Europe?
The vacuum at the heart of the philes is a complete lack of reality.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
No, any link which did not give us 90 electoral college votes would not be worth it...
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? We would be one sixth of the population, so should have one sixth of the senators, ergo 10 of 60 states.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
No, any link which did not give us 90 electoral college votes would not be worth it...
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
No, any link which did not give us 90 electoral college votes would not be worth it...
It'd be hilarious seeing candidates fly over to do a primary and then fly back to finish the race.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
No, I would not be voting for his deal, it is a despicable farrago of fibs.
I'd vote to REMAIN in the EU solely on the - selfish - basis that leaving would damage London, and the London property market (ergo my personal wealth) and the unselfish basis that Brexit gives the Scot Nats one last but very good chance - in this generation - of breaking up the UK.
These considerations have nothing to do with Cameron's squalid little "deal". The deal is merely the reason I now despise him.
I'll be voting Leave - it would have taken something truly remarkable to have persuaded me otherwise: nothing I've seen in the past has persuaded me that the EU is anything other than an unmitigated crock of shit - but I'm not blaming David Cameron for the paucity of the offer, I blame the EU itself.
It's quite possible to despise and blame the European Union AND David Cameron, and that is precisely what I shall be doing. He should have been honest and said Meh, I can't get much of a deal, but I think where we are is just about OK, anyway. Take it or leave it.
Instead he's selling a lunchbox full of shit like its a tasting menu at Le Gavroche. Deliberately lying to the voters, and on absolutely fundamental issues. He's Blair all over again.
I look forward to your publishers selling your next book as "It's not as good as the previous one, and the title is a crowdsourced pile of wank, but what can you do? Take it or leave it."
lol. Touche.
But what Cameron is doing is saying Look, my new book is almost as Good as War and Peace, when he knows, and knew all along, that it was off-form Jeffrey Archer.
The title by the way is THE FIRE CHILD. Not bad, with the right cover.
Does the child get flayed, blood-eagled, or have his intestines boiled?
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
NAFTA does not dictate social policy, monetary or fiscal policy, or a whole range of other things. It is purely economic, albeit including such regulations that effective economic competitiveness.
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
As I'd feared, there won't be a sufficiently pro-EU option on the ballot paper. Cameron's deal is too EU-sceptic for my tastes - so to hell with him. I'll not be turning out to vote for this drivel.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
I quite agree and it again shows the huge vacuum at the heart of the Leavers. Where to? Let the squabbling begin all over again when it comes to that. And of course it will not be just an argument between the Leavers. Everybody would be involved, leaving the EU would not disenfranchise the ones who would rather stay in, although I am sure that's what some would like. One dispute would be exchanged for another.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
No, I would not be voting for his deal, it is a despicable farrago of fibs.
I'd vote to REMAIN in the EU solely on the - selfish - basis that leaving would damage London, and the London property market (ergo my personal wealth) and the unselfish basis that Brexit gives the Scot Nats one last but very good chance - in this generation - of breaking up the UK.
These considerations have nothing to do with Cameron's squalid little "deal". The deal is merely the reason I now despise him.
I'll be voting Leave - it would have taken something truly remarkable to have persuaded me otherwise: nothing I've seen in the past has persuaded me that the EU is anything other than an unmitigated crock of shit - but I'm not blaming David Cameron for the paucity of the offer, I blame the EU itself.
It's quite possible to despise and blame the European Union AND David Cameron, and that is precisely what I shall be doing. He should have been honest and said Meh, I can't get much of a deal, but I think where we are is just about OK, anyway. Take it or leave it.
Instead he's selling a lunchbox full of shit like its a tasting menu at Le Gavroche. Deliberately lying to the voters, and on absolutely fundamental issues. He's Blair all over again.
I look forward to your publishers selling your next book as "It's not as good as the previous one, and the title is a crowdsourced pile of wank, but what can you do? Take it or leave it."
lol. Touche.
But what Cameron is doing is saying Look, my new book is almost as Good as War and Peace, when he knows, and knew all along, that it was off-form Jeffrey Archer.
The title by the way is THE FIRE CHILD. Not bad, with the right cover.
Does the child get flayed, blood-eagled, or have his intestines boiled?
Speaking of which I saw the Hateful Eight on Sunday!
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
NAFTA does not dictate social policy, monetary or fiscal policy, or a whole range of other things. It is purely economic, albeit including such regulations that effective economic competitiveness.
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
PS I was in no way actually advocating union of the UK and USA. Just noting that it would make for an interesting world. Personally, I think the UK is best off as an independent state charting its own bilateral relations with the rest of the world.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
As opposed to a hyper religious populace hellbent on forcing their own rule of law over us?
Eire? Otherwise what has the EU got to do with your remark. The vacuum at the heart of the phobes is plastered all over your comment.
Point was raised about a cultural affinity with the US, what about the cultural clashes going on all over Europe?
The vacuum at the heart of the philes is a complete lack of reality.
The culture clashes are primarily with those from outside Europe. That's kind-of reinforces the point that there is a common European culture; social, political and economic.
I've just read that the EU deal is a humiliation, and that in a sense comes closest to it.
t suggests the UK is a divided and feeble country with few if any options beyond being assimilated into one giant block or another, more or less on the terms set out by that block. And that is very much the view of the remainers, judging from their posts today. It may even be the view of the leavers, because as RN says, they have failed to come up with a vision of the UK outside the EU.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
As opposed to a hyper religious populace hellbent on forcing their own rule of law over us?
Eire? Otherwise what has the EU got to do with your remark. The vacuum at the heart of the phobes is plastered all over your comment.
Point was raised about a cultural affinity with the US, what about the cultural clashes going on all over Europe?
The vacuum at the heart of the philes is a complete lack of reality.
The culture clashes are primarily with those from outside Europe. That's kind-of reinforces the point that there is a common European culture; social, political and economic.
You are missing the point, deliberately I presume.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
NAFTA does not dictate social policy, monetary or fiscal policy, or a whole range of other things. It is purely economic, albeit including such regulations that effective economic competitiveness.
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
Sure, it's far more limited in scope but it's still lopsided. If we were going to go down that route, it'd be more in Britain's interests to join TTIP as a third party.
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
I think this ridiculous "deal" will go down quite badly with a lot of Tory MPs, though many will pay lip service, as the careerists they are (cf Nick Palmer)
But there is a huge prize here for any well-known Tory willing to seize the torch and lead the LEAVERS, even if they are likely to lose. He will then be seen as a man (or woman) of integrity, and will surely reap the benefits post IN vote, as we all get buyer's remorse, and the Tories turn on the Cameron wing of the party.
This is Boris's moment. He should man up, lead the LEAVE campaign, and take it to honourable defeat. He would then get the sympathy vote, as the SNP did after NO.
Conversely giving this silly deal enthusiastic support could be longterm poison for Tory leadership contenders.
Ha ha ha. The BBC has a report about the least happy group are 45 to 59 year old men.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? We would be one sixth of the population, so should have one sixth of the senators, ergo 10 of 60 states.
Not that I'd want to join the USA anyway, but I don't see much support to divide up England into ancient kingdoms most don't identify with.
Yes but its the best that an optionless, powerless, friendless country like ours can expect, because as the remainers have said, there are literally NO alternatives that don;t involve exactly the same or infinitely worse terms.
We're just captain powerless, whether its in, out or NAFTA, and the notion of anything else is completely impossible.
Power requires will; we won't acquire any more of it simply by leaving the EU. Unless the people vote again and again and again to chart an independent course then we'll get essentially more of the same, just in a different form.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
NAFTA does not dictate social policy, monetary or fiscal policy, or a whole range of other things. It is purely economic, albeit including such regulations that effective economic competitiveness.
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
Outside of by far the most important sphere of all
Seriously, the NAFTA ISDS provisions are pretty draconian. Worse, deliberations are in secret. A Canadian province can not, to use a real example, choose to ban certain GM products.
My personal view is that all international bodies and agreements - from NAFTA to the EU to NATO to the Commission for the Rhine - restrict sovereignty to a greater or lesser degree. We cannot sit completely apart from them. All countries find themselves bound by treaty to abide by the arbitration of some faceless body at some point or another. (Unless you are the US, in which case the faceless body is your own legal system.)
That being said, not all agreements are equal. I personally prefer the much more modest bindings of EFTA/EEA, and I would note that there is not the ability to levy unlimited fines, as is the case under NAFTA.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? We would be one sixth of the population, so should have one sixth of the senators, ergo 10 of 60 states.
Not that I'd want to join the USA anyway, but I don't see much support to divide up England into ancient kingdoms most don't identify with.
Divide England up and sell it to America. Typical alternative to the EU. -:) The whole point of the US system was to give equal senate representation to Wyoming and California. And someone thinks the US would let a Johnny come lately swan in and game they system.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? We would be one sixth of the population, so should have one sixth of the senators, ergo 10 of 60 states.
Not that I'd want to join the USA anyway, but I don't see much support to divide up England into ancient kingdoms most don't identify with.
Divide England up and sell it to America. Typical alternative to the EU. -:) The whole point of the US system was to give equal senate representation to Wyoming and California. And someone thinks the US would let a Johnny come lately swan in and game they system.
I agree with you but neither Wyoming or California existed as states when US system designed!!
Yes but its the best that an optionless, powerless, friendless country like ours can expect, because as the remainers have said, there are literally NO alternatives that don;t involve exactly the same or infinitely worse terms.
The fact is that Cameron is a Europhile, so of course he sees his deal as being good... it doesn't mean he is disingenuous, it means that people who lack the independence of mind to think for themselves on how to vote should factor in that he is a committed Europhile when listening to his praise for the deal, as they should when Farage et al criticize it
I think what Cameron is banking on is that few of the public will realise that he was never "undecided" and that he always wanted to stay, and that it looks better to pretend you can be swayed than to appear dogmatic.. he has tried to appear centre ground on the ref, despite being an extremist
Yes but its the best that an optionless, powerless, friendless country like ours can expect, because as the remainers have said, there are literally NO alternatives that don;t involve exactly the same or infinitely worse terms.
That's a little harsh.
But the truth is that there are great powers (the US, China, and errrr, that's about it), and other countries largely have to accept the terms offered to them by said great powers.
So, under the Trans Pacific Partnership, something like 98% of goods going to Australia from the US are now tariff free, against only 75% the other way. (And the bulk of products going from Australia to the US were already tariff free, given they were basic commodities.) Furthermore, Australia was required by treaty to change its intellectual property laws so that they were in sync with US laws. Essentially, Australia is required to move in lock step with laws enacted by the US Congress.
Or take Switzerland's "Free Trade Agreement" with China. That's also appallingly asymetrical. Chinese firms can sell financial services in Switzerland and buy Swiss banks... but not the other way around. Switzerland removed almost all tariffs on Chinese products; in return China lowered tariffs on Swiss watches by 5%... over the next decade.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? We would be one sixth of the population, so should have one sixth of the senators, ergo 10 of 60 states.
Not that I'd want to join the USA anyway, but I don't see much support to divide up England into ancient kingdoms most don't identify with.
Divide England up and sell it to America. Typical alternative to the EU. -:) The whole point of the US system was to give equal senate representation to Wyoming and California. And someone thinks the US would let a Johnny come lately swan in and game they system.
I agree with you but neither Wyoming or California existed as states when US system designed!!
Yes, but its not been changed. And there were big states and small ones. The principal was well discussed and agreed.
Did I see here that the maximum iport duty under the world trade treaties is 2.5% ? And most of our imports we can make ourselves - does it matter if the EU hold its breath until it is blue?
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
We have higher GDP than every country in the world except the USA, China, Japan and Germany, and are also ranked 5th in military power behind the USA, China, Russian and India it's a touch insulting to consider us a small country.
Did I see here that the maximum iport duty under the world trade treaties is 2.5% ? And most of our imports we can make ourselves - does it matter if the EU hold its breath until it is blue?
There's no such thing as world trade treaties that restrict maximum import duties. Tariffs for goods entering the US - for example - range from 0% to (at least) 55%. (The 55% was the highest I could find in a 30 seconds look .) See https://hts.usitc.gov/ for details.
Most trade deals are not about tariff rates, however. They are about cross border ownership and the ability of companies in one country to serve another. So, can British workers in the UK offer professional services to a Chinese financial services firm without tariffs, for example.
It is all very simple..Dave puts his new deal on the table..we all read it..then we vote..stay or go..nompoint bin discussing bit endlessly here or in the MSM..you either like it or not...
So, a majority of EU nations oppose something in their parliaments, and the sum total of that is that the EU has to wrinkle its brow and have a ponder.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
We have higher GDP than every country in the world except the USA, China, Japan and Germany, and are also ranked 5th in military power behind the USA, China, Russian and India it's a touch insulting to consider us a small country.
We are a small country. We constitute less than 1% of global population and only a few percent of world trade.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
NAFTA does not dictate social policy, monetary or fiscal policy, or a whole range of other things. It is purely economic, albeit including such regulations that effective economic competitiveness.
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
Outside of by far the most important sphere of all
Seriously, the NAFTA ISDS provisions are pretty draconian. Worse, deliberations are in secret. A Canadian province can not, to use a real example, choose to ban certain GM products.
My personal view is that all international bodies and agreements - from NAFTA to the EU to NATO to the Commission for the Rhine - restrict sovereignty to a greater or lesser degree. We cannot sit completely apart from them. All countries find themselves bound by treaty to abide by the arbitration of some faceless body at some point or another. (Unless you are the US, in which case the faceless body is your own legal system.)
That being said, not all agreements are equal. I personally prefer the much more modest bindings of EFTA/EEA, and I would note that there is not the ability to levy unlimited fines, as is the case under NAFTA.
You are correct. The alternatives are not much different and require an element of wishful thinking to put them on a plausible footing. Things may be more suitable on the EEA but the difference is not much. I think the way we deal with the Eurozone is the !most important and I am not sure how much benefit the EEA has there.
So, a majority of EU nations oppose something in their parliaments, and the sum total of that is that the EU has to wrinkle its brow and have a ponder.
William Hague said back in 2008 that it would be difficult getting 14 parliaments to overrule the EU even if a new directive proposed the murder of the firstborn.
So, a majority of EU nations oppose something in their parliaments, and the sum total of that is that the EU has to wrinkle its brow and have a ponder.
William Hague said back in 2008 that it would be difficult getting 14 parliaments to overrule the EU even if a new directive proposed the murder of the firstborn.
Is that the proposed new method of dealing with the migrant flow?
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
We have higher GDP than every country in the world except the USA, China, Japan and Germany, and are also ranked 5th in military power behind the USA, China, Russian and India it's a touch insulting to consider us a small country.
We are a small country. We constitute less than 1% of global population and only a few percent of world trade.
According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports we are tenth in the world for exports, comprising almost a quarter of the EU exports and around a fifth of china and a quarter of the USAs exports. Not a super power for sure, but hardly tin pot.
Can anyone tell me what Rubio is on the nomination on betfair at the moment? I can't access it at work.
1.83/1.85
Which implies a 54% chance. Bonkers.
I don't think that's bonkers at all. But Trump looks a reasonable short-term hedge.
Do you really think Rubio has more chance than everyone else put together, when he's just finished third in Iowa (a good third, I'll grant you, but still third), is miles behind Trump in NH, SC and national polls. There is a question mark over Nevada, where (unaccountably) there haven't been any polls this year yet but he's trailing Trump and Cruz in SC and very probably NH (indeed, he may well be fourth there although it's tight for second though not for first).
The Huff average has him on 10% nationally. Has there ever been such a big discrepancy between polling and odds at this stage of the race?
Can anyone tell me what Rubio is on the nomination on betfair at the moment? I can't access it at work.
1.83/1.85
Which implies a 54% chance. Bonkers.
There might be a chance to reback him and square off properly after New Hampshire. "The comeback Trump" !
Backing him after New Hampshire may make sense. I'll be watching his numbers in Nevada and SC closely though.
Might be talking through my wallet, but I've never seen such ramping of a third place finish on TV. CBSN was positively drooling over him, no idea if CNN/Fox were any different.
Bernie was desperately unlucky. On a 3-3 coin toss tie he would have "beaten" Hilary, which would have been a bigger story than "tieing".
So, a majority of EU nations oppose something in their parliaments, and the sum total of that is that the EU has to wrinkle its brow and have a ponder.
William Hague said back in 2008 that it would be difficult getting 14 parliaments to overrule the EU even if a new directive proposed the murder of the firstborn.
'Guardian is reporting the red card system isn't all it seems. Even if 16 parliaments issue it, EU just has to reconsider. It don't block the law.'
It's simply pathetic.
Cameron shows the "Red Card"
A miracle happens and 16 parliaments are sitting, and manage/can be bothered to schedule a debate and substantive motion on the issue. By a complete miracle they agree despite some of their governments having previously supported the motion in the EU parliament. The EU Parliament is notified
"Yes, we reconsidered it, we though about it long and hard over lunch, and on balance we think will we go ahead with it anyway"
The "business leaders'" comments about the Single Market being the vital for us need to be thoroughly debunked. I liked Roger Bootles' Telegraph piece yesterday. As he says:
Yet hardly anyone seems to know what the single market is really about. It is more appropriately described as a single regulatory system. You can readily understand why this makes sense – certainly compared to a situation in which all 28 EU members have their own regulations and standards.
And then this bit:
But for goods exports, if we left, not only would the single market still exist, but a British company trying to export into it would still enjoy the advantages of there being a single set of regulations governing all 27 other countries. In other words, the single market’s advantage to us derives, not from the fact that we are in it, but rather from the fact that they are in it.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Hard to be a small country on your own? Look at the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita
Qatar 137,162 2 Luxembourg 97,639 3 Singapore 83,066 4 Brunei 79,890 5 Kuwait 70,686 6 Norway 67,166 7 United Arab Emirates 66,347 8 San Marino 60,887 9 Switzerland 58,149 — Hong Kong 55,097
Only Luxembourg is in any kind of serious EU-type bloc
You just listed a bunch of oil exporters. Congratulations.
I've just read that the EU deal is a humiliation, and that in a sense comes closest to it.
t suggests the UK is a divided and feeble country with few if any options beyond being assimilated into one giant block or another, more or less on the terms set out by that block. And that is very much the view of the remainers, judging from their posts today. It may even be the view of the leavers, because as RN says, they have failed to come up with a vision of the UK outside the EU.
So why not vote LEAVE and start a serious renegotiation of terms with the EU. They would know we were serious about leaving the second time round and more prepared to concede.
Can anyone tell me what Rubio is on the nomination on betfair at the moment? I can't access it at work.
1.83/1.85
Which implies a 54% chance. Bonkers.
I don't think that's bonkers at all. But Trump looks a reasonable short-term hedge.
Do you really think Rubio has more chance than everyone else put together, when he's just finished third in Iowa (a good third, I'll grant you, but still third), is miles behind Trump in NH, SC and national polls. There is a question mark over Nevada, where (unaccountably) there haven't been any polls this year yet but he's trailing Trump and Cruz in SC and very probably NH (indeed, he may well be fourth there although it's tight for second though not for first).
The Huff average has him on 10% nationally. Has there ever been such a big discrepancy between polling and odds at this stage of the race?
Yes. Trump has far too many unfavourables, and Cruz is simply too right-wing (and a massive jerk, to boot). National polling is largely irrelevant at this stage. And Rubio will soon be the establishment choice, with endorsements and superdelegates.
That's how I see it, anyway. The anti-establishment mood is as real as it's ever been but it's not going to be enough - just like May 2015.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Hard to be a small country on your own? Look at the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita
Qatar 137,162 2 Luxembourg 97,639 3 Singapore 83,066 4 Brunei 79,890 5 Kuwait 70,686 6 Norway 67,166 7 United Arab Emirates 66,347 8 San Marino 60,887 9 Switzerland 58,149 — Hong Kong 55,097
Only Luxembourg is in any kind of serious EU-type bloc
You just listed a bunch of oil exporters. Congratulations.
Well.. 5 of the 10 are I guess. The others appear to be banking centres and places with interest tax arrangements.. oh!
David Cameron has been in Brussels attempting to secure reforms to Britain's relationship with the European Union. From what you have read or heard, do you think David Cameron has been successful or unsuccessful in his negotiations so far?
TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP Very successful 1 1 2 6 0 0 Fairly successful 20 17 30 27 14 7 Fairly unsuccessful 28 29 27 32 29 28 Very unsuccessful 24 24 21 10 34 49 Don't know 27 29 20 25 23 16
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
We have higher GDP than every country in the world except the USA, China, Japan and Germany, and are also ranked 5th in military power behind the USA, China, Russian and India it's a touch insulting to consider us a small country.
It's all relative. Against the US or China, yes, we are a small country. Set against any other, we at least hold our own one way or another. But the world is dominated by superpowers.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Hard to be a small country on your own? Look at the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita
Qatar 137,162 2 Luxembourg 97,639 3 Singapore 83,066 4 Brunei 79,890 5 Kuwait 70,686 6 Norway 67,166 7 United Arab Emirates 66,347 8 San Marino 60,887 9 Switzerland 58,149 — Hong Kong 55,097
Only Luxembourg is in any kind of serious EU-type bloc
Or perhaps you consider that unfair, so let's look at OECD liveability:, the top ten best places to live
1 Norway 2 iceland 3 Switzerland 4. Australia 5. USA 6. Canada 7 Sweden 8. Netherlands 9 NZ 10 Denmark
The first EU country is Sweden at 7. No major, core EU country makes the list
David Cameron has been in Brussels attempting to secure reforms to Britain's relationship with the European Union. From what you have read or heard, do you think David Cameron has been successful or unsuccessful in his negotiations so far?
TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP Very successful 1 1 2 6 0 0 Fairly successful 20 17 30 27 14 7 Fairly unsuccessful 28 29 27 32 29 28 Very unsuccessful 24 24 21 10 34 49 Don't know 27 29 20 25 23 16
Those numbers are not good for remain and I expect them to worsen.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Hard to be a small country on your own? Look at the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita
Qatar 137,162 2 Luxembourg 97,639 3 Singapore 83,066 4 Brunei 79,890 5 Kuwait 70,686 6 Norway 67,166 7 United Arab Emirates 66,347 8 San Marino 60,887 9 Switzerland 58,149 — Hong Kong 55,097
Only Luxembourg is in any kind of serious EU-type bloc
You just listed a bunch of oil exporters. Congratulations.
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
Come on dude: all I am doing is pointing out that it is by no means an entirely easy to be a small country on its own. There's a reason why pretty much every major economy has ended up in one trade bloc or another.
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Hard to be a small country on your own? Look at the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita
Qatar 137,162 2 Luxembourg 97,639 3 Singapore 83,066 4 Brunei 79,890 5 Kuwait 70,686 6 Norway 67,166 7 United Arab Emirates 66,347 8 San Marino 60,887 9 Switzerland 58,149 — Hong Kong 55,097
Only Luxembourg is in any kind of serious EU-type bloc
You just listed a bunch of oil exporters. Congratulations.
A little unfair, there's also a country thrown in there with a mighty population of sub 32K...
Comments
1) Let me address the 'selfishly - London' issue. I understand you are concerned about London house prices? But you have daughters, don't you? Sooner or later they will want somewhere to live - it does no good if they can't afford a house because the Thomas family wealth is all tied up in your flat. I take no pleasure from the increases in house prices in my home town (it happens outside London too) because one day my daughters will want somewhere to live; my paper wealth is increasing at the expense of theirs.
2) Unselfishly - Scotland. Fair enough, I couldn't give a stuff whether Scotland stays or goes, personally - it'll still be there, it's not going to float off into the North Sea. I'll be just as Scottish if there is a different constitutional arrangement. Although I accept there are some strategic issues, not least early warning of Russian approaches across the Arctic.
3) I always knew David Cameron was a Remainer, and he has made no attempt to pretend otherwise, He harbours the (in my view) erroneous belief that the EU can be reformed and made more favourable to Britain, but he believes that Britain is better off in the EU. Fair enough - I disagree. He's delivered - in my view - the best deal possible, which is practically no deal at all. Niccolo Machiavelli could have hardly done better in the face of European intransigence that the EU is fine as it is and general grumpiness towards Britain. But he has at least delivered (or appears to be doing so) a referendum, something which hasn't happened in my lifetime. I'll be voting Leave - it would have taken something truly remarkable to have persuaded me otherwise: nothing I've seen in the past has persuaded me that the EU is anything other than an unmitigated crock of shit - but I'm not blaming David Cameron for the paucity of the offer, I blame the EU itself.
Theresa May is the only plausible candidate who will not be giving up the chance of ever securing a Great Office Of State if she leads Leave, because she's already had one for 6 years.
It'll be Osborne v May for my money; there's a world of difference between electing a new Tory leader and electing an immediate PM, especially given that it's a membership-only vote.
What about being independent along the lines of the British??
How is that working out?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-02/how-ted-cruz-engineered-his-iowa-triumph
If that quality of campaign continues in the next few states, maybe Cruz has got a better chance than we think.
The principal argument in favour of Remain here seems to be that we're doomed, regardless of how we vote, so we might as well as stick with the status quo.
Otherwise what has the EU got to do with your remark. The vacuum at the heart of the phobes is plastered all over your comment.
Not doomed, but powerless. We are powerless to change the terms of our membership.Voting out will leave us powerless in a different way. Joining NAFTA would render us powerless in yet another different way.
We're just captain powerless, whether its in, out or NAFTA, and the notion of anything else is completely impossible.
Interesting Rubio sucked up all the non insurgent candidate votes, doesn't bode well he still came third. Trump will be looking to squeeze Rand (impressive 5th), Carson and Cruz. Now one of his weakest states is out of the way lets see how it goes, only dropped one delegate at the end of the day.
Major offensive begun around Aleppo, SAA on the verge of lifting the siege of Nubl and Zahraa. Rebel supply lines to Turkey are now cut. Very impressive intervention by Russia.
At some point sadly I'll need to reback Jeb Bush, but I'm not pulling that move at 22s.
I was badly bruised by the Rubio surge although it's still not an overall loss but I know you went longer on Cruz.
The GOP book has lost about £120 of value though I think.
Took some profits on the night on Clinton/Cruz though (Clinton was more or less a wash anyone mind)
Cruz 28/Trump 27/Rubio 18 would have been alot better !
Half panic backed Rubio at 5.0 for £100 for POTUS after I stared too long at the screen pondering the same on his GOPship at 2.60. (Which was a good move actually it seems)
He's too short at odds on though.
The vacuum at the heart of the philes is a complete lack of reality.
Remain 39%, Leave 41%, according to Yougov's eurotrack survey.
https://t.co/zZpdrFg0ih https://t.co/QJJWn5BWaD
Outside of the economic sphere, how exactly does NAFTA constrain the sovereignty of Canada?
http://order-order.com/2016/02/02/union-baron-all-the-tories-are-an-absolute-disgrace-they-should-be-taken-out-and-shot/
t suggests the UK is a divided and feeble country with few if any options beyond being assimilated into one giant block or another, more or less on the terms set out by that block. And that is very much the view of the remainers, judging from their posts today. It may even be the view of the leavers, because as RN says, they have failed to come up with a vision of the UK outside the EU.
"The comeback Trump" !
A cobbled together, half arsed mess of a compromise. The EU in a nutshell.
NOT {Rubio, Cruz, Trump} though ?
But other than that, did you like it?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/leave-campaign-will-be-buoyed-by-eu-deal-that-offers-precious-little
The BBC has a report about the least happy group are 45 to 59 year old men.
Yes but its the best that an optionless, powerless, friendless country like ours can expect, because as the remainers have said, there are literally NO alternatives that don;t involve exactly the same or infinitely worse terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ozSeGw-fY
Seriously, the NAFTA ISDS provisions are pretty draconian. Worse, deliberations are in secret. A Canadian province can not, to use a real example, choose to ban certain GM products.
My personal view is that all international bodies and agreements - from NAFTA to the EU to NATO to the Commission for the Rhine - restrict sovereignty to a greater or lesser degree. We cannot sit completely apart from them. All countries find themselves bound by treaty to abide by the arbitration of some faceless body at some point or another. (Unless you are the US, in which case the faceless body is your own legal system.)
That being said, not all agreements are equal. I personally prefer the much more modest bindings of EFTA/EEA, and I would note that there is not the ability to levy unlimited fines, as is the case under NAFTA.
The whole point of the US system was to give equal senate representation to Wyoming and California. And someone thinks the US would let a Johnny come lately swan in and game they system.
I think what Cameron is banking on is that few of the public will realise that he was never "undecided" and that he always wanted to stay, and that it looks better to pretend you can be swayed than to appear dogmatic.. he has tried to appear centre ground on the ref, despite being an extremist
Not looking at anyone honest!
But the truth is that there are great powers (the US, China, and errrr, that's about it), and other countries largely have to accept the terms offered to them by said great powers.
So, under the Trans Pacific Partnership, something like 98% of goods going to Australia from the US are now tariff free, against only 75% the other way. (And the bulk of products going from Australia to the US were already tariff free, given they were basic commodities.) Furthermore, Australia was required by treaty to change its intellectual property laws so that they were in sync with US laws. Essentially, Australia is required to move in lock step with laws enacted by the US Congress.
Or take Switzerland's "Free Trade Agreement" with China. That's also appallingly asymetrical. Chinese firms can sell financial services in Switzerland and buy Swiss banks... but not the other way around. Switzerland removed almost all tariffs on Chinese products; in return China lowered tariffs on Swiss watches by 5%... over the next decade.
WHAT???
Are America dictating to the Australians how to organise their immigration laws? is that part of Australia's deal?
Are the Chinese telling the Swiss how many Syrians they have to accept?
Are Chinese courts striking down Swiss court judgements?
The EU goes beyond that, which is why I support (vocally on this site, and for a long time) EFTA/EEA over EU.
Apols, I over reacted, the information you gave was very useful and interesting, and indeed sobering. If I wasn;t already sober enough.
What a bad deal.
Most trade deals are not about tariff rates, however. They are about cross border ownership and the ability of companies in one country to serve another. So, can British workers in the UK offer professional services to a Chinese financial services firm without tariffs, for example.
So, a majority of EU nations oppose something in their parliaments, and the sum total of that is that the EU has to wrinkle its brow and have a ponder.
Things may be more suitable on the EEA but the difference is not much.
I think the way we deal with the Eurozone is the !most important and I am not sure how much benefit the EEA has there.
It's simply pathetic.
The Huff average has him on 10% nationally. Has there ever been such a big discrepancy between polling and odds at this stage of the race?
Bernie was desperately unlucky. On a 3-3 coin toss tie he would have "beaten" Hilary, which would have been a bigger story than "tieing".
A miracle happens and 16 parliaments are sitting, and manage/can be bothered to schedule a debate and substantive motion on the issue. By a complete miracle they agree despite some of their governments having previously supported the motion in the EU parliament. The EU Parliament is notified
"Yes, we reconsidered it, we though about it long and hard over lunch, and on balance we think will we go ahead with it anyway"
Currently touring football clubs giving advice to the young pros
http://www.abetterperspective.co.uk/#!testimonials/hri6j
Quite nice I think that someone is tackling the filth at source
That's how I see it, anyway. The anti-establishment mood is as real as it's ever been but it's not going to be enough - just like May 2015.
David Cameron has been in Brussels attempting to secure reforms to Britain's relationship with the European Union. From what you have read or heard, do you think David Cameron has been successful or unsuccessful in his negotiations so far?