''That would have the effect of damaging London and I don't see anything in the proposed deal which would protect the UK from such measures.''
My point is that this kind of thing is going to happen anyway, because the EU is essentially completely hostile to the City, whether we are in or out.
The point is that the City does huge business outside continental Europe. If we stay out, and stay outside the EU and outside the EEA we can shelter and nurture this business. As Barclays, says, we will become a safe haven for overseas money.
Inside the EU, they can get at all our business. European, and non-European.
One of the difficulties of being out is this: all banks are desperately trying to cut costs. If in order to trade in the Eurozone they have to have offices inside it they will think very hard about whether to make that office their main office. London is expensive. Banks are already outsourcing what they can to cheaper locations. We cannot assume that international banks will continue to maintain their significant UK bases if this increases their costs for no particular advantage.
One reason why the City is so successful is precisely because it has access to markets all round the world. If outside the EU it may find access to the EU market made much more difficult. The UK may still have a relative advantage of course and this may not happen. A financial services sector does not develop overnight, whatever the French and Germans may say, and there are plenty of reasons why banks might not want to base themselves in those two countries. Plus a financial services sector in Europe - even if not in the EU - is of benefit to European companies.
Nonetheless, I think there will be considerable pressure from the Eurozone to consolidate as much as possible within it. I think they find it infuriating at some level that more euros are traded in London than anywhere else. That will only grow in the UK votes to leave. It's one reason why I hoped that - behind all the migrant nonsense - the government would be negotiating hard to protect the position of one of its most significant industries (and all the associated service sectors) from attacks by other EU states. The so-called deal is very disappointing on that front.
On Topic, outside of PB the entirety of my conversations about the EU referendum have been when I asked my Mum last week how she would vote... she said "to stay in" and I said "ok whats on the telly"
I tried to make the same point down thread and got a lecture on immigration - #Ohtheirony.
Here we go again. According to today’s Daily Express, leaving the European Union is the only way to ‘save the NHS’. According to the Prime Minister, remaining a member of the european club is the only way to guarantee the United Kingdom’s security.
I suppose it is too much to hope that everyone, on both sides of this increasingly-wearisome argument, will pipe down and cease being so damn stupid? Of course it is. We will be stuck with more – much more – of this until such time as the bleedin’ poll is called and held. This may be the best reason for having the referendum as soon as possible.
Strangely enough, the Express' argument seems to resonate with the public. One recent poll from Yougov showed quite a big plurality of voters who thought that leaving the EU would help the NHS.
For the life of me, I can't see how EU membership has any bearing on the NHS.
One of the main arguments for Leave in the public mind is that less money going to Brussels bureaucracy will mean more money for British public services.
That should be one of the main arguments Leave are driving home (along with immigration) if they want to get the chunk of Labour voters that are essential for them.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
Indeed. Sadly there's a risk it will be too late before people realise what we've lost.
...snip...
If you're referring to those who wish to Leave, perhaps Remain should be doing more than repeating lots of figures beginning with Three, whilst Cameron makes up scaremongering stories about immigrant camps across the Home Counties.
I despair of both sides. Personally, I'd to see some completely impartial advice spelling out the pros and cons of both sides of the argument. From a wholly independent source, with no skin in the game. Feck knows how that's ever achievable.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
Round objects.
c.50% of "the plebs" want to Leave.
You are a fantastically insightful political punter with a huge amount of wisdom to offer this site but, I'm afraid, on subjects like the EU you are just far too emotionally invested and talk a lot of nonsense.
Mostly driven by the fact that those that oppose it are people you viscerally dislike.
I have views on lots of things. I have a view on whether Louis Van Gaal should remain manager of Manchester United. I have a view on whether Britain should retain an independent nuclear deterrent. I have a view on whether pensions taxation should be reformed. I have a view on whether drugs should be legalised.
If someone were to poll my opinion on each of those matters, I would express my view. That would not mean that the subject was necessarily one of central importance to me. On at least two of those I would defer to those who I considered experts if I were asked to vote in a referendum on the subject. Opinion polls measure numbers, not strength of feeling.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
''One bread and butter issue for me is what staying in the EU or leaving might mean for the financial services sector. The arguments are pretty finely balanced at the moment.''
For me, whichever way you look at it, the City is on borrowed time. Inside, the whole thing is getting strangled - City am is stacked full of articles complaining about EU over regulation.
Outside, we may lose tngle egulation to attract more business from elsewhere.
In end, the EU hates the City and wants to destroy it. If we leave, we will at least save some of it.
naive.
EU regulation is the rules. Do you suppose we can impose our own on the EU?
I am an out-waverer but there would be more than an element of government by fax in financial services if we left.
The Elopping a large chunk of costs off our suppliers and making the UK more competitive. Must be a bad idea.
ere are our rules for trading in the UK" but that would add not inconsiderable complexity and cost to the process.
That doesn't take into account the strength of the City, and how we could set the agenda that the EU would have to fit in with, including after we leave.
This is something the French and Germans will continually erode if we stay in.
The City could set any agenda it wants but if you think it could get in the way of eg. MiFID you have not thought it through.
The nature of finance means that the City (from it's pre-eminient position) can in fact parallel EU financial products and take control, and there's nothing they can do about it.
with respect (as they say), that is bolleaux.
explain what you mean by saying the City can "parallel EU financial products"?
How do you parallel trade Deutsche Tel, the u/l?
Welcome to the world of financial derivatives.
I think you underestimate bankers if you don't think they could do this.
Very funny. You think a Deutsche tel CFD traded out of London is going to replace trading the u/l on Xetra!!
Won't replace it. Just supplement it for people what want to do business outside Eurozone restrictions. Like Eurodollar market did for USA.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
As with Gay marriage.. most people I know don't really care much either way, some wouldn't even know if it is legal or not... But when I said I was vaguely against but not really bothered, certain people on here, who like to castigate me for apparently disbelieving (in reality couldn't care less about) their position on the EU ref, simply refused to let it lie and said I must hate all gay people, want them locked up etc etc
Would be very different to cut London off from Eurozone without (a) a lot of burdensome regulations on companies having foreign parents and (b) also cutting off Euro firms from HK, New York, Dubai, Shanghai. Main end resut likely to be EZ companies moving elsewhere.
Indeed. Sadly there's a risk it will be too late before people realise what we've lost.
...snip...
If you're referring to those who wish to Leave, perhaps Remain should be doing more than repeating lots of figures beginning with Three, whilst Cameron makes up scaremongering stories about immigrant camps across the Home Counties.
I despair of both sides. Personally, I'd to see some completely impartial advice spelling out the pros and cons of both sides of the argument. From a wholly independent source, with no skin in the game. Feck knows how that's ever achievable.
That would be great in politics generally... Spin is a cancer for democracy, but it keeps some mugs happy
The most disappointing phrases to me are "That's Politics" or "Welcome to politics" to describe blatant lying to further a cause... that isn't actually politics
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
In summary he seems to be saying that since people don't think the EU is important it therefore by definition cannot be important. Ignore how much impact it has on people's lives that they may not be aware of. The very fact that it they are not aware of it is sufficient to say that it cannot be important.
This is a patronizing and fatuous argument. The work of both sides in that case should be to educate the public as to exactly how much impact EU membership does have so they take it more seriously. Something LEAVE have failed to do and REMAIN do not want to do.
@Cyclefree and anyone else who might be interested, god help you.
I am guessing you are not involved in financial services and are making your usual insightful assessment of what might or might not happen. And it sounds plausible.
But you (and @MarkHopkins) are missing the point a bit. And no fault of yours.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
Trading european stocks only from within the Eurozone? That is a bit far-fetched. They could theoretically say you must use a european-based broker but that might irritate the US, Asia, UK, etc and I just don't see it as credible. Why would they want to restrict turnover in their stock markets? I would have to google the number of non-EU-based brokers trading EU stocks and the associated turnover but I am thinking it is non-trivial.
FTT? Well the arguments against are well-rehearsed. And it was to pay to trade european stocks. There are already taxes on domestic share trading in France, Italy and the UK. The argument against the FTT was that if the UK and the US all agreed to implement it then fine we could think of giving it a go but not otherwise (not that anyone would necessarily have wanted it).
Trust me, MiFID doesn't get any more arcane. It is the giant set of rules that people trade european stocks by. We at present get to put in our oar about how we want MiFID to look. If we were not in the EU we would be presented with it and have to lump it.
My first suggestion is not far-fetched at all. It's what the French insisted on if you wanted to become a French government bond dealer. You needed to have a significant place of business in France not a nameplate with all the real action happening elsewhere.
Would it win such a case if outside the EU? Who knows? But the idea that concentrating everything as much as possible within the Eurozone regardless of the detriment to the UK is not likely to happen is for the birds. It will happen, whether we're in or out. The real question is whether we are more protected by being in than out. I don't see much protection at all in what Cameron has apparently negotiated. If there isn't such protection, then the balance of advantage/disadvantage shifts.
PS I'm well aware of MiFiD. I've probably forgotten more about EU Directives than most people have ever learnt. The sad reality is that we don't really get much say in most of these Directives, partly because we're outvoted and partly because the UK and the FCA are bloody useless at lobbying on stuff that matters.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
As with Gay marriage.. most people I know don't really care much either way, some wouldn't even know if it is legal or not... But when I said I was vaguely against but not really bothered, certain people on here, who like to castigate me for apparently disbelieving (in reality couldn't care less about) their position on the EU ref, simply refused to let it lie and said I must hate all gay people, want them locked up etc etc
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
As with Gay marriage.. most people I know don't really care much either way, some wouldn't even know if it is legal or not... But when I said I was vaguely against but not really bothered, certain people on here, who like to castigate me for apparently disbelieving (in reality couldn't care less about) their position on the EU ref, simply refused to let it lie and said I must hate all gay people, want them locked up etc etc
Trading european stocks only from within the Eurozone? That is a bit far-fetched. They could theoretically say you must use a european-based broker but that might irritate the US, Asia, UK, etc and I just don't see it as credible. Why would they want to restrict turnover in their stock markets? I would have to google the number of non-EU-based brokers trading EU stocks and the associated turnover but I am thinking it is non-trivial.
FTT? Well the arguments against are well-rehearsed. And it was to pay to trade european stocks. There are already taxes on domestic share trading in France, Italy and the UK. The argument against the FTT was that if the UK and the US all agreed to implement it then fine we could think of giving it a go but not otherwise (not that anyone would necessarily have wanted it).
Trust me, MiFID doesn't get any more arcane. It is the giant set of rules that people trade european stocks by. We at present get to put in our oar about how we want MiFID to look. If we were not in the EU we would be presented with it and have to lump it.
PS I'm well aware of MiFiD. I've probably forgotten more about EU Directives than most people have ever learnt. The sad reality is that we don't really get much say in most of these Directives, partly because we're outvoted and partly because the UK and the FCA are bloody useless at lobbying on stuff that matters.
And for that we largely have market participants to blame who woke up late to the fact of its implications. Again, ask Kay Swinburne about it, perhaps you have come across her in your travels..
''One bread and butter issue for me is what staying in the EU or leaving might mean for the financial services sector. The arguments are pretty finely balanced at the moment.''
For me, whichever way you look at it, the City is on borrowed time. Inside, the whole thing is getting strangled - City am is stacked full of articles complaining about EU over regulation.
Outside, we may lose tngle egulation to attract more business from elsewhere.
In end, the EU hates the City and wants to destroy it. If we leave, we will at least save some of it.
naive.
EU regulation is the rules. Do you suppose we can impose our own on the EU?
I am an out-waverer but there would be more than an element of government by fax in financial services if we left.
The Elopping a large chunk of costs off our suppliers and making the UK more competitive. Must be a bad idea.
ere are our rules for trading in the UK" but that would add not inconsiderable complexity and cost to the process.
That doesn't take into account the strength of the City, and how we could set the agenda that the EU would have to fit in with, including after we leave.
This is something the French and Germans will continually erode if we stay in.
The City could set any agenda it wants but if you think it could get in the way of eg. MiFID you have not thought it through.
The nature of finance means that the City (from it's pre-eminient position) can in fact parallel EU financial products and take control, and there's nothing they can do about it.
with respect (as they say), that is bolleaux.
explain what you mean by saying the City can "parallel EU financial products"?
How do you parallel trade Deutsche Tel, the u/l?
Welcome to the world of financial derivatives.
I think you underestimate bankers if you don't think they could do this.
Very funny. You think a Deutsche tel CFD traded out of London is going to replace trading the u/l on Xetra!!
Won't replace it. Just supplement it for people what want to do business outside Eurozone restrictions. Like Eurodollar market did for USA.
If you are going to trade a derivative you will need to hedge your risk with the underlying. Unless you are prepared to run the sort of risks which no Chief Risk Officer or regulator in their right mind would countenance.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
As with Gay marriage.. most people I know don't really care much either way, some wouldn't even know if it is legal or not... But when I said I was vaguely against but not really bothered, certain people on here, who like to castigate me for apparently disbelieving (in reality couldn't care less about) their position on the EU ref, simply refused to let it lie and said I must hate all gay people, want them locked up etc etc
Entertaining and provocative article. It's more subtle than saying "most people don't care". They do care, a bit, and they care more about other things which are or can be portrayed as dependent on membership or leaving the EU, like prosperity or immigration.
But the number of people who actually switch parties over the EU (or gay marriage or Hamas) is small - they exist, but it's important for everyone's sanity to recognise that the numbers are limited, unlesds they're pushed into it. From time to time, people try to make one of these things an article of faith - e.g. people on both sides of the Trident argument are trying to do that in Labour at the moment - but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
@Cyclefree and anyone else who might be interested, god help you.
I am guessing you are not involved in financial services and are making your usual insightful assessment of what might or might not happen. And it sounds plausible.
But you (and @MarkHopkins) are missing the point a bit. And no fault of yours.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
Financial Services are an important part of our economy. I guess the industry is not keen for us to leave. I guess the industry is keen to extend the free market into financial services as well. So again I imagine leaving the EU and going into the EEA would not be much different to what is on offer now.
I don't really buy the "nobody cares" argument. If nobody cared, Cameron wouldn't be having this referendum.
In its way, it's like Ribbentrop assuring Molotov in an air raid shelter that Germany had won the war, and getting the response "If the war is won, whose bombs are we sheltering from?"
Oh, some people care. Disproportionately, the rightwing politically active are obsessed by the subject. David Cameron had to keep the backbenches in some form of order and pledging a referendum was the price he had to pay.
I'm sure that Roman emperors had to pay close attention and indulge the hobby horses of the praetorian guard. That doesn't mean that the plebs shared the same obsessions.
As with Gay marriage.. most people I know don't really care much either way, some wouldn't even know if it is legal or not... But when I said I was vaguely against but not really bothered, certain people on here, who like to castigate me for apparently disbelieving (in reality couldn't care less about) their position on the EU ref, simply refused to let it lie and said I must hate all gay people, want them locked up etc etc
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
@Cyclefree and anyone else who might be interested, god help you.
I am guessing you are not involved in financial services and are making your usual insightful assessment of what might or might not happen. And it sounds plausible.
But you (and @MarkHopkins) are missing the point a bit. And no fault of yours.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
What could happen to this sector, whether in or out, is not clear cut, which is one reason why the balance of risk between Leave and Remain - if this were the only factor to consider - is finely balanced.
Still, scarcely a day goes by when I am not in some kind of contact with the FCA, the AMF, CONSOB, CMVM, CNMV, FINMA, the SEC etc (respectively the British, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swiss and US regulators). And this has been the case for the best part of two decades now.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
@Cyclefree and anyone else who might be interested, god help you.
I am guessing you are not involved in financial services and are making your usual insightful assessment of what might or might not happen. And it sounds plausible.
But you (and @MarkHopkins) are missing the point a bit. And no fault of yours.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
What could happen to this sector, whether in or out, is not clear cut, which is one reason why the balance of risk between Leave and Remain - if this were the only factor to consider - is finely balanced.
Still, scarcely a day goes by when I am not in some kind of contact with the FCA, the AMF, CONSOB, CMVM, CNMV, FINMA, the SEC etc (respectively the British, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swiss and US regulators). And this has been the case for the best part of two decades now.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
So then my question - if we are not in the EU, and let's just pretend for a moment that the UK/FCA/UK's Rapporteur are not completely useless in negotiating, do we get to have as much of an input into MiFIDs III-V and beyond?
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree that Labour's position on this is strange but, to be honest, everything about Labour these days is somewhere between weird and bizarre.
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
What could happen to this sector, whether in or out, is not clear cut, which is one reason why the balance of risk between Leave and Remain - if this were the only factor to consider - is finely balanced.
Still, scarcely a day goes by when I am not in some kind of contact with the FCA, the AMF, CONSOB, CMVM, CNMV, FINMA, the SEC etc (respectively the British, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swiss and US regulators). And this has been the case for the best part of two decades now.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
So then my question - if we are not in the EU, and let's just pretend for a moment that the UK/FCA/UK's Rapporteur are not completely useless in negotiating, do we get to have as much of an input into MiFIDs III-V and beyond?
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
Why would we have a Rapporteur if we are not in the EU?
What am I more concerned about is what input the UK will have into financial services legislation if it remains given that it can be outvoted by the Eurozone and given the inevitable consolidation of the Eurozone into one political and economic bloc? And what it can do to stop the Eurozone passing measures to the UK's detriment?
Those are key questions for me and I have not seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Still, I expect I am boring others by now. So best be off. Thanks for the discussion.
Here we go again. According to today’s Daily Express, leaving the European Union is the only way to ‘save the NHS’. According to the Prime Minister, remaining a member of the european club is the only way to guarantee the United Kingdom’s security.
I suppose it is too much to hope that everyone, on both sides of this increasingly-wearisome argument, will pipe down and cease being so damn stupid? Of course it is. We will be stuck with more – much more – of this until such time as the bleedin’ poll is called and held. This may be the best reason for having the referendum as soon as possible.
Strangely enough, the Express' argument seems to resonate with the public. One recent poll from Yougov showed quite a big plurality of voters who thought that leaving the EU would help the NHS.
For the life of me, I can't see how EU membership has any bearing on the NHS.
Possibly because you would like to see the NHS abolished.
Here we go again. According to today’s Daily Express, leaving the European Union is the only way to ‘save the NHS’. According to the Prime Minister, remaining a member of the european club is the only way to guarantee the United Kingdom’s security.
I suppose it is too much to hope that everyone, on both sides of this increasingly-wearisome argument, will pipe down and cease being so damn stupid? Of course it is. We will be stuck with more – much more – of this until such time as the bleedin’ poll is called and held. This may be the best reason for having the referendum as soon as possible.
Strangely enough, the Express' argument seems to resonate with the public. One recent poll from Yougov showed quite a big plurality of voters who thought that leaving the EU would help the NHS.
For the life of me, I can't see how EU membership has any bearing on the NHS.
Possibly because you would like to see the NHS abolished.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. Al
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
So then my question - if we are not in the EU, and let's just pretend for a moment that the UK/FCA/UK's Rapporteur are not completely useless in negotiating, do we get to have as much of an input into MiFIDs III-V and beyond?
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
Why would we have a Rapporteur if we are not in the EU?
What am I more concerned about is what input the UK will have into financial services legislation if it remains given that it can be outvoted by the Eurozone and given the inevitable consolidation of the Eurozone into one political and economic bloc? And what it can do to stop the Eurozone passing measures to the UK's detriment?
Those are key questions for me and I have not seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Still, I expect I am boring others by now. So best be off. Thanks for the discussion.
ta-ra. Shame it sounds like you have great expertise in the area. Your speed dial list is certainly impressive.
My point about the rapporteur was that if you assume they are useful at all then would(n't) our position outside the EU (and hence without a rapporteur) be worse?
Anyway, yes certainly boring but your point is well-made except that ship has sailed. Of course the UK can be outvoted by the EU bloc but in multi-member negotiations everyone gets outvoted although of course as financial services relates to the UK it is much more important for us.
My concern is that if you think we are getting outvoted in it, what on earth will happen if we are outside it?
In summary he seems to be saying that since people don't think the EU is important it therefore by definition cannot be important. Ignore how much impact it has on people's lives that they may not be aware of. The very fact that it they are not aware of it is sufficient to say that it cannot be important.
This is a patronizing and fatuous argument. The work of both sides in that case should be to educate the public as to exactly how much impact EU membership does have so they take it more seriously. Something LEAVE have failed to do and REMAIN do not want to do.
The PM has already told of the impact, he says if we Leave there'll be jungle camps all over Kent.
There, he's educated us and now we take it seriously.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. Al
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
So then my question - if we are not in the EU, and let's just pretend for a moment that the UK/FCA/UK's Rapporteur are not completely useless in negotiating, do we get to have as much of an input into MiFIDs III-V and beyond?
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
Why would we have a Rapporteur if we are not in the EU?
What am I more concerned about is what input the UK will have into financial services legislation if it remains given that it can be outvoted by the Eurozone and given the inevitable consolidation of the Eurozone into one political and economic bloc? And what it can do to stop the Eurozone passing measures to the UK's detriment?
Those are key questions for me and I have not seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Still, I expect I am boring others by now. So best be off. Thanks for the discussion.
ta-ra. Shame it sounds like you have great expertise in the area. Your speed dial list is certainly impressive.
My point about the rapporteur was that if you assume they are useful at all then would(n't) our position outside the EU (and hence without a rapporteur) be worse?
Anyway, yes certainly boring but your point is well-made except that ship has sailed. Of course the UK can be outvoted by the EU bloc but in multi-member negotiations everyone gets outvoted although of course as financial services relates to the UK it is much more important for us.
My concern is that if you think we are getting outvoted in it, what on earth will happen if we are outside it?
Your penultimate para is the key point. A point seemingly lost on Cameron and co. Your last sentence is why the decision is finely balanced.
The industry is prepared to put up with a lot of the regulation etc provided it gets the freedoms to provide services from wherever and the single passport. If however it gets the former but the latter is restricted or harmed in some way by further Eurozone integration then the balance in favour of remain is not maybe quite so clear cut.
BTW Having regulators in contact with you every day is not necessarily a good thing.......
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree that Labour's position on this is strange but, to be honest, everything about Labour these days is somewhere between weird and bizarre.
It may be strange, but it is true that support for Remain is one of the few things that almost everyone in Labour agrees on.
My local party had a debate on the issue last month - in a meeting of perhaps 100 people only one person spoke up for Leave. Several prominent Corbynites spoke strongly in favour of Remain. Leave has virtually no supporters on the left, either inside or outside Labour.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. Al
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
So then my question - if we are not in the EU, and let's just pretend for a moment that the UK/FCA/UK's Rapporteur are not completely useless in negotiating, do we get to have as much of an input into MiFIDs III-V and beyond?
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
Why would we have a Rapporteur if we are not in the EU?
What am I more concerned about is what input the UK will have into financial services legislation if it remains given that it can be outvoted by the Eurozone and given the inevitable consolidation of the Eurozone into one political and economic bloc? And what it can do to stop the Eurozone passing measures to the UK's detriment?
Those are key questions for me and I have not seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Still, I expect I am boring others by now. So best be off. Thanks for the discussion.
ta-ra. Shame it sounds like you have great expertise in the area. Your speed dial list is certainly impressive.
My point about the rapporteur was that if you assume they are useful at all then would(n't) our position outside the EU (and hence without a rapporteur) be worse?
Anyway, yes certainly boring but your point is well-made except that ship has sailed. Of course the UK can be outvoted by the EU bloc but in multi-member negotiations everyone gets outvoted although of course as financial services relates to the UK it is much more important for us.
My concern is that if you think we are getting outvoted in it, what on earth will happen if we are outside it?
Your penultimate para is the key point. A point seemingly lost on Cameron and co. Your last sentence is why the decision is finely balanced.
The industry is prepared to put up with a lot of the regulation etc provided it gets the freedoms to provide services from wherever and the single passport. If however it gets the former but the latter is restricted or harmed in some way by further Eurozone integration then the balance in favour of remain is not maybe quite so clear cut.
BTW Having regulators in contact with you every day is not necessarily a good thing.......
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
If Cameron was Putin then you'd be London Bob, only less articulate.
US definition of middle class isn't what we call middle class.
I don't know what parameters US academics would put on it, but generally "middle class" would encompass what we would call traditional working class folk in semi-skilled and skilled manual labour type jobs. So not your burger flipper at McDonald's, but definitely the guys and girls working in a trade. They also don't mean your Guardian / Telegraph reading £100k a year type "middle" class who works in high ranking public sector or banking etc.
Interesting article if you look at the rise in dissatisfaction (anger) with the political classes. It seems that for years we've had politicians that don't do or achieve anything. The electorate are getting fed up and are willing to look in other directions for strong leadership.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
I do so hope that the EU Referendum is rather unimportant to the majority of the population: it means the LEAVE votes of my immediate family will carry more weight.
On the whole "leavers" care more about exit of the EU than remainers do staying in it.
Will "Remain" be able to get the vote out on the day ?
There's plenty of evidence from elections in this country that moderate opinion will mobilise to keep power away from fanatics. The key for both sides in the referendum campaign will be presenting themselves as the steady-as-she-goes choice. This is naturally harder for the leave camp.
But I reckon, judging by what I've seen so far, there are more fanatics in the REMAIN camp.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Surprising given that people expect a high turnout isn't it?
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree, and in practice nobody is going to get ejected for opposing EU membership - e.g. Kate Hoey's been a sceptic for ages and she likes modified fox-hunting and Trident too, and she's still fine. The Labour Party, for all its faults, doesn't normally do witch-hunts. But of course there's a risk that a non-member Labour voter will be annoyed that whenever he sees a Labour speaker, he's a pro-EU zealot.
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
To answer the question directly, I'd estimate those that consider our membership of the EU to be very important from the Remain side are c.10% of the population. Those who feel very strongly against our membership are probably 25-30%, so totalling about 35-40% of the population for whom this issue matters a lot.
That also explains why so many Remainers are keen to say 'no-one cares about the EU' because they are not confident about winning the debate on the issue (probably unfoundedly) if it's flushed into the open and made of prime importance.
Ironically, they stand a better chance of winning the argument amongst the don'tgiveashits than they do amongst those that care passionately. They'd probably win on the former but lose on the latter.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Surprising given that people expect a high turnout isn't it?
I expect a high turnout. I don't think that's the slightest bit contradictory.
The leave campaigners seem to believe that momentum is with them but it seems very premature with the final agreement to be agreed and the referendum date announced. Once the campaign swings into action the combined endorsement of David Cameron and most of the cabinet, the labour party, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, Ruth Davidson and the Scots conservatives, the lib dems, the BBC, CBI, most unions, will be formidable and I still believe it will be 60-40 to remain. After all at present the only ones fighting to leave are the right of the conservative party, ukip, the express and mail, with some support from the telegraph and sun, and some labour mps but no leader with a high enough profile to make a difference.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
You can write what you like. But on this you're wrong.
I'll wait for your next piece containing your insights into the betting markets, which are unmatched anywhere else on the web and at which you excel at.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a tot.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
Just like joining (or not joining) the euro, staying or not staying in the EU is an issue of sovereignty.
If you think the UK is as relaxed about issues of sovereignty as about fox-hunting then fine. But my guess is they are not. There is arguably (perhaps indisputably) no more important issue for a country than its sovereignty.
Now the $64,000 question is are people aware that when we talk about Brexit we are discussing sovereignty or do they appreciate that we are, but not give a t0ss?
Whichever it is, I don't think it should be lumped in with those other issues.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
As someone who was very confident in UKIP winning several seats, you'd think you might be a little less confident now.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
You can write what you like. But on this you're wrong.
I'll wait for your next piece containing your insights into the betting markets, which are unmatched anywhere else on the web and at which you excel at.
You keep saying I'm wrong. But I'm the one that's produced data and so far you've produced emotion and guesses that align with your personal hopes. I'll pay attention once you produce some evidence to back up your wishful thinking.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree, and in practice nobody is going to get ejected for opposing EU membership - e.g. Kate Hoey's been a sceptic for ages and she likes modified fox-hunting and Trident too, and she's still fine. The Labour Party, for all its faults, doesn't normally do witch-hunts. But of course there's a risk that a non-member Labour voter will be annoyed that whenever he sees a Labour speaker, he's a pro-EU zealot.
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
Another problem for Labour people is that anyone supporting Leave will be on the same platform - metaphorically speaking - as Nigel Farage, IDS and the Daily Mail. This would be very hard to defend to a Labour audience
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
Bullsh*t.
If Dave comes back from the Council of Europe meeting and says he's changed his mind and it has to be LEAVE you would change your vote so fast your nose would bleed. Its got nothing to do with principle, you are just a hardcore party loyalist, nothing wrong with that.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
I'm flattered that you consider me to be influential, but you're misguided, the views on here are entrenched.
Keep score, count how many anti PM posts I make compared with how many anti Ukip ones you see, then tally up how often you hear me whining.
An interesting (and to me surprising) snippet on New Hampshire:
In the final two weeks of the New Hampshire contest, Clinton’s campaign spent $800,000 on ads there compared with Sanders’ $2.8 million, according to an analysis of media buy data reported by Politico.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
As someone who was very confident in UKIP winning several seats, you'd think you might be a little less confident now.
Yes, I'm unfortunate, I'm the only person in the world ever to have made a wrong prediction.
Now help me out - what do I predict on the referendum?
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree, and in practice nobody is going to get ejected for opposing EU membership - e.g. Kate Hoey's been a sceptic for ages and she likes modified fox-hunting and Trident too, and she's still fine. The Labour Party, for all its faults, doesn't normally do witch-hunts. But of course there's a risk that a non-member Labour voter will be annoyed that whenever he sees a Labour speaker, he's a pro-EU zealot.
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
Another problem for Labour people is that anyone supporting Leave will be on the same platform - metaphorically speaking - as Nigel Farage, IDS and the Daily Mail. This would be very hard to defend to a Labour audience
I agree with that - it feels a bit weird being in the same camp as the swivel eyed. But we were allies with Stalin in the past, so in comparison Farage is a kitten.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
I think that's right, if both sides of the argument would have the grace not to treat this weapons system as a bloody Ark of the Covenant. It's possible to be pro or con and still be a reasonable Labour supporter, and whatever the majority party view there will be MPs who disagree and won't vote that way. Too bad, we have to live with it.
The polling shows that voters, if actually asked, look around for a middle option, which is why the "subs without missiles", which even I find a bit hard to explain, is quite a popular option.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
"I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest"
Who said so? I am happy to admit it is exactly that, as are almost all political debates, that's why we post on a niche site.
As for the turnout/interest contradiction/non contradiction we will have to agree to disagree
An interesting (and to me surprising) snippet on New Hampshire:
In the final two weeks of the New Hampshire contest, Clinton’s campaign spent $800,000 on ads there compared with Sanders’ $2.8 million, according to an analysis of media buy data reported by Politico.
The obvious weakness of representative democracy, and it's shown up even more in referenda, is that the majority on any given question may both be small and made up of those who think "well, I suppose X is the best of a bad lot" - whilst the minority are passionately opposed to X and have to be restrained by their loved ones from doing both X and themselves a mischief.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree that Labour's position on this is strange but, to be honest, everything about Labour these days is somewhere between weird and bizarre.
It may be strange, but it is true that support for Remain is one of the few things that almost everyone in Labour agrees on.
My local party had a debate on the issue last month - in a meeting of perhaps 100 people only one person spoke up for Leave. Several prominent Corbynites spoke strongly in favour of Remain. Leave has virtually no supporters on the left, either inside or outside Labour.
I do agree that there's very few Labour activists who actually want to Leave - I was in a small minority a few months back at a meeting when I said I was on the fence.
However, I don't get the sense that for most that it's the kind of die-in-a-ditch principle that it seems to be for Labour MPs.
An interesting (and to me surprising) snippet on New Hampshire:
In the final two weeks of the New Hampshire contest, Clinton’s campaign spent $800,000 on ads there compared with Sanders’ $2.8 million, according to an analysis of media buy data reported by Politico.
@michaelsavage: GMB to hold special conf on #Trident: "Since the Labour Party announced its defence review GMB has not stood idly by & nor do we intend to."
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
I think that's right, if both sides of the argument would have the grace not to treat this weapons system as a bloody Ark of the Covenant. It's possible to be pro or con and still be a reasonable Labour supporter, and whatever the majority party view there will be MPs who disagree and won't vote that way. Too bad, we have to live with it.
The polling shows that voters, if actually asked, look around for a middle option, which is why the "subs without missiles", which even I find a bit hard to explain, is quite a popular option.
Missiles without subs might be a better deterrent.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree that Labour's position on this is strange but, to be honest, everything about Labour these days is somewhere between weird and bizarre.
It may be strange, but it is true that support for Remain is one of the few things that almost everyone in Labour agrees on.
My local party had a debate on the issue last month - in a meeting of perhaps 100 people only one person spoke up for Leave. Several prominent Corbynites spoke strongly in favour of Remain. Leave has virtually no supporters on the left, either inside or outside Labour.
I do agree that there's very few Labour activists who actually want to Leave - I was in a small minority a few months back at a meeting when I said I was on the fence.
However, I don't get the sense that for most that it's the kind of die-in-a-ditch principle that it seems to be for Labour MPs.
The self importance on this site is astonishing, its interesting and good fun but absolutely irrelevant in framing the electorate's views.
Fuck me, a few weeks back I said I didn't care that Putin had killed one of his spies and somebody said that as result of that they weren't voting Leave.
I was tempted to pop round with a bunch of flowers and some Lucozade.
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
I'm flattered that you consider me to be influential, but you're misguided, the views on here are entrenched.
Keep score, count how many anti PM posts I make compared with how many anti Ukip ones you see, then tally up how often you hear me whining.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree that Labour's position on this is strange but, to be honest, everything about Labour these days is somewhere between weird and bizarre.
It may be strange, but it is true that support for Remain is one of the few things that almost everyone in Labour agrees on.
My local party had a debate on the issue last month - in a meeting of perhaps 100 people only one person spoke up for Leave. Several prominent Corbynites spoke strongly in favour of Remain. Leave has virtually no supporters on the left, either inside or outside Labour.
I do agree that there's very few Labour activists who actually want to Leave - I was in a small minority a few months back at a meeting when I said I was on the fence.
However, I don't get the sense that for most that it's the kind of die-in-a-ditch principle that it seems to be for Labour MPs.
I'm surprised none of the Corbynites have concerns over TTIP/CETA. Do you ?
The self importance on this site is astonishing, its interesting and good fun but absolutely irrelevant in framing the electorate's views.
Fuck me, a few weeks back I said I didn't care that Putin had killed one of his spies and somebody said that as result of that they weren't voting Leave.
I was tempted to pop round with a bunch of flowers and some Lucozade.
You must admit that it shows you for the sort of person you are.
Comments
One reason why the City is so successful is precisely because it has access to markets all round the world. If outside the EU it may find access to the EU market made much more difficult. The UK may still have a relative advantage of course and this may not happen. A financial services sector does not develop overnight, whatever the French and Germans may say, and there are plenty of reasons why banks might not want to base themselves in those two countries. Plus a financial services sector in Europe - even if not in the EU - is of benefit to European companies.
Nonetheless, I think there will be considerable pressure from the Eurozone to consolidate as much as possible within it. I think they find it infuriating at some level that more euros are traded in London than anywhere else. That will only grow in the UK votes to leave. It's one reason why I hoped that - behind all the migrant nonsense - the government would be negotiating hard to protect the position of one of its most significant industries (and all the associated service sectors) from attacks by other EU states. The so-called deal is very disappointing on that front.
That should be one of the main arguments Leave are driving home (along with immigration) if they want to get the chunk of Labour voters that are essential for them.
And earning the average national salary after a fraction of Joe Average effort.
My screen doesn't have enough mega pixels to see the appropriate Venn diagram section here.
I despair of both sides. Personally, I'd to see some completely impartial advice spelling out the pros and cons of both sides of the argument. From a wholly independent source, with no skin in the game. Feck knows how that's ever achievable.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
The most disappointing phrases to me are "That's Politics" or "Welcome to politics" to describe blatant lying to further a cause... that isn't actually politics
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
In summary he seems to be saying that since people don't think the EU is important it therefore by definition cannot be important. Ignore how much impact it has on people's lives that they may not be aware of. The very fact that it they are not aware of it is sufficient to say that it cannot be important.
This is a patronizing and fatuous argument. The work of both sides in that case should be to educate the public as to exactly how much impact EU membership does have so they take it more seriously. Something LEAVE have failed to do and REMAIN do not want to do.
I am guessing you are not involved in financial services and are making your usual insightful assessment of what might or might not happen. And it sounds plausible.
But you (and @MarkHopkins) are missing the point a bit. And no fault of yours.
European stocks trading is currently governed by the EU and via its rulebook, MiFID. All EU nations have debated, argued, discussed MiFID and how exactly trading should take place and under what conventions. The UK was a large part of that as you might expect.
Assuming the EU wasn't about to cut its nose off to spite its face by banning UK, US, Asia-based brokers trading european shares, then the key issue is the rulebook and how we trade and who benefits from the rules. In the EU we can argue the case for things that benefit the UK and some form of that will go into the new rules. Outside the EU we would have no seat at that table and be presented with the rulebook and told to get on with it.
Now, the UK could develop its own regulatory standards and say to everyone: you comply with that or no FTSE trading for you. And no doubt firms would but then firms would have two regulatory standards to comply with as in any case all UK firms would have to comply with MiFID if they wanted to continue being the hub for european trading.
Sorry to bang on - I find myself boring even myself so goodness knows what you or anyone else thinks about it, but them's the facts.
In Europe, you have two choices: embrace disastrous open doors immigration pushed by leadership class or be labeled "far-right" & destroyed.
There was a more recent proposal which the UK won before the ECJ which related to a similar proposal - http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2015-03-04/uk-wins-ecj-case-on-eurozone-clearing-houses.
Would it win such a case if outside the EU? Who knows? But the idea that concentrating everything as much as possible within the Eurozone regardless of the detriment to the UK is not likely to happen is for the birds. It will happen, whether we're in or out. The real question is whether we are more protected by being in than out. I don't see much protection at all in what Cameron has apparently negotiated. If there isn't such protection, then the balance of advantage/disadvantage shifts.
PS I'm well aware of MiFiD. I've probably forgotten more about EU Directives than most people have ever learnt. The sad reality is that we don't really get much say in most of these Directives, partly because we're outvoted and partly because the UK and the FCA are bloody useless at lobbying on stuff that matters.
Opinion polls asking for peoples major concerns got
Death
Safety
Family
Deformity
Security
...as the main responses
So no ones talking about the nuclear bomb non story then
But the number of people who actually switch parties over the EU (or gay marriage or Hamas) is small - they exist, but it's important for everyone's sanity to recognise that the numbers are limited, unlesds they're pushed into it. From time to time, people try to make one of these things an article of faith - e.g. people on both sides of the Trident argument are trying to do that in Labour at the moment - but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
Still, scarcely a day goes by when I am not in some kind of contact with the FCA, the AMF, CONSOB, CMVM, CNMV, FINMA, the SEC etc (respectively the British, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swiss and US regulators). And this has been the case for the best part of two decades now.
But you may well be right and I know nothing about financial services regulation.
Ah well. Back to the day job.
And edit: apologies I see you are positively Lamfalussyan in your knowledge of financial services regulation.
I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
What am I more concerned about is what input the UK will have into financial services legislation if it remains given that it can be outvoted by the Eurozone and given the inevitable consolidation of the Eurozone into one political and economic bloc? And what it can do to stop the Eurozone passing measures to the UK's detriment?
Those are key questions for me and I have not seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Still, I expect I am boring others by now. So best be off. Thanks for the discussion.
PS: If I thought for a second it would help towards next independence referendum then I would vote accordingly
The NHS is a behemoth and full of producer entitlement.
Free At The Point Of Access is what I want.
My point about the rapporteur was that if you assume they are useful at all then would(n't) our position outside the EU (and hence without a rapporteur) be worse?
Anyway, yes certainly boring but your point is well-made except that ship has sailed. Of course the UK can be outvoted by the EU bloc but in multi-member negotiations everyone gets outvoted although of course as financial services relates to the UK it is much more important for us.
My concern is that if you think we are getting outvoted in it, what on earth will happen if we are outside it?
There, he's educated us and now we take it seriously.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12147570/America-Barack-Obama-Donald-Trump-Why-is-America-so-angry.html
The industry is prepared to put up with a lot of the regulation etc provided it gets the freedoms to provide services from wherever and the single passport. If however it gets the former but the latter is restricted or harmed in some way by further Eurozone integration then the balance in favour of remain is not maybe quite so clear cut.
BTW Having regulators in contact with you every day is not necessarily a good thing.......
http://order-order.com/2016/02/09/labours-consistent-flip-flopping-on-surveillance/
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
My local party had a debate on the issue last month - in a meeting of perhaps 100 people only one person spoke up for Leave. Several prominent Corbynites spoke strongly in favour of Remain. Leave has virtually no supporters on the left, either inside or outside Labour.
Let me assure you, the recent landslide for PIS in Poland ensures that there will be no gay marriage invading Poland for quite some time.
You're not helping. Too often, we're seeing those in two=minds accused of lying.
I suffered similar here for years by those who refused to accept some are not so black/white.
Do you really think that's true?
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
That also explains why so many Remainers are keen to say 'no-one cares about the EU' because they are not confident about winning the debate on the issue (probably unfoundedly) if it's flushed into the open and made of prime importance.
Ironically, they stand a better chance of winning the argument amongst the don'tgiveashits than they do amongst those that care passionately. They'd probably win on the former but lose on the latter.
Three poker players spared jail for £33,600 card swap cheat and banned from casinos for 12 months
A fourth card sharp is in a French prison for human trafficking and so was unable to appear in court
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
Still working on getting Mr. Eagles to see reason on classical history, though.
I changed from Remain to Leave based on posts here and linked articles.
I'll wait for your next piece containing your insights into the betting markets, which are unmatched anywhere else on the web and at which you excel at.
If you think the UK is as relaxed about issues of sovereignty as about fox-hunting then fine. But my guess is they are not. There is arguably (perhaps indisputably) no more important issue for a country than its sovereignty.
Now the $64,000 question is are people aware that when we talk about Brexit we are discussing sovereignty or do they appreciate that we are, but not give a t0ss?
Whichever it is, I don't think it should be lumped in with those other issues.
LEAVE = British and proud!
REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
If Dave comes back from the Council of Europe meeting and says he's changed his mind and it has to be LEAVE you would change your vote so fast your nose would bleed. Its got nothing to do with principle, you are just a hardcore party loyalist, nothing wrong with that.
Keep score, count how many anti PM posts I make compared with how many anti Ukip ones you see, then tally up how often you hear me whining.
You lot want it both ways.
In the final two weeks of the New Hampshire contest, Clinton’s campaign spent $800,000 on ads there compared with Sanders’ $2.8 million, according to an analysis of media buy data reported by Politico.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/09/in_nh_clinton_expected_to_be_snowed_under.html
Now help me out - what do I predict on the referendum?
The polling shows that voters, if actually asked, look around for a middle option, which is why the "subs without missiles", which even I find a bit hard to explain, is quite a popular option.
Who said so? I am happy to admit it is exactly that, as are almost all political debates, that's why we post on a niche site.
As for the turnout/interest contradiction/non contradiction we will have to agree to disagree
However, I don't get the sense that for most that it's the kind of die-in-a-ditch principle that it seems to be for Labour MPs.
Fuck me, a few weeks back I said I didn't care that Putin had killed one of his spies and somebody said that as result of that they weren't voting Leave.
I was tempted to pop round with a bunch of flowers and some Lucozade.
It's also worth noting the site can, sometimes, affect lines that individuals/parties take.
Unfortunately, this not yet extend to the Morris Dancer Party's exciting plans for a trebuchet-based justice system.
Expectations game: in 1-on-1 interview @marcorubio says tonight is abt picking up delegates, not placing 1st/2nd/3rd #FITN #nhpolitics #WMUR
Incidentally the WMUR live coverage looks quite useful:
http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Live_2016_New_Hampshire_primary_election_coverage
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/09/sanders_kasich_win_first_votes_in_tiny_nh_community_129599.html