The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
The positive reason is the inverse of those. This isn't hard to understand, surely? We benefit from the Single Market - pretty much everyone agrees with that - which is a benefit from being members of the EU. Most Leavers argue that we could get that benefit with less downside by some other arrangement. Fair enough - if that were true, it would be a positive reason to vote Leave, even allowing for the inevitable short-term damage from the uncertainty. Unfortunately, having looked in great detail at it, it doesn't stack up.
Virtually every EU country makes a profit out of a tariff-free trade deal with the UK presently. It's difficult to imagine the bosses at BMW etc beating Frau Merkel's door down to put a stop to it.
As I may have said before, the EU should be paying us to be in, not the other way round. They sell us many more BMWs than we sell them Jaguars.
The owners of Jaguar will just have to build enough manufacturing capacity in the UK to replace the 700,000 BMW/Mercedes/Audis per annum that we will no longer buy off the Germans.
'I hink a 20% fall is on the high end of estimates'
This 20% number comes from a silly piece by Goldmans which assumes the UK would have to close its current account deficit more or less immediately after Brexit. That is nonsense, as they well know.
And once again, we had all this silly scaremongering back in the 1990s, with various banks and rating agencies claiming sterling/foreign investment/the economy would collapse if the UK stayed out of the euro.
While at the same time, various firms were arguing for euro entry on the basis of sterling being 'overvalued' compared to its supposed likely euro entry rate i.e. they wanted to join the euro in order to get a devaluation!
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
You must be mad to continue engaging with that poster on this issue.
I assume you gave up because you had no cogent or reasonable answers. Simply running away when things get tough is hardly a great way to make your point.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
Either futrue is to some extent a leap into the unknown.
Staying in will be taken by the EU as a green light to ever closer union and we will not be able to negotiate any opt outs of anything ever again - we will be "all-in" in their minds - and should be grateful for the crumbs they have tossed us this week to boot.
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
The positive reason is the inverse of those. This isn't hard to understand, surely? We benefit from the Single Market - pretty much everyone agrees with that - which is a benefit from being members of the EU. Most Leavers argue that we could get that benefit with less downside by some other arrangement. Fair enough - if that were true, it would be a positive reason to vote Leave, even allowing for the inevitable short-term damage from the uncertainty. Unfortunately, having looked in great detail at it, it doesn't stack up.
That is brilliantly wrong headed. So by your reckoning the claims about 3 million jobs lost is not a scare story but a positive reason for staying in. And the claims that we will be swamped by millions of immigrants who will want to rape all our daughters is not a scare story but simply a positive message for Leaving?
That is brilliantly wrong headed. So by your reckoning the claims about 3 million jobs lost is not a scare story but a positive reason for staying in. And the claims that we will be swamped by millions of immigrants who will want to rape all our daughters is not a scare story but simply a positive message for Leaving?
Your so called logic is quite ridiculous.
The 3 million jobs line is a scare story, as is the AA's nonsense about petrol prices.
A possible loss of 1% to 2% per annum GDP over a couple of years is not a scare story, but a reasonable independent estimate from Credit Suisse (there are many others of course, mostly in roughly the same ballpark). It might not be right, but it's the best we can do.
* They both back LEAVE. MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN PUNDITS ARE PUNDITTING ABOUT. For all the detailed analysis and spewing up of buzzphrases and acronyms in an unpalatable dish of expertise, this possibility is hardly getting punditted about all. And of course the failure of the talks will all be Johnny Foreigner's fault. They may even pick on one called "Manuel".
I'm pleased to be on LEAVE at 2\1.
If that happens I am going to have the gloat of all gloats at the hemming and hawing and the screeching of handbrakes as the Cameron loyalists attempt to execute a U-turn without looking ridiculous.
Bat as he's already ruled out using his "ace" (walking out and recommending the UK quits) he knows full well he'll have to accept whatever gruel the EU decide to throw his way.
* They both back LEAVE. MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN PUNDITS ARE PUNDITTING ABOUT. For all the detailed analysis and spewing up of buzzphrases and acronyms in an unpalatable dish of expertise, this possibility is hardly getting punditted about all. And of course the failure of the talks will all be Johnny Foreigner's fault. They may even pick on one called "Manuel".
I'm pleased to be on LEAVE at 2\1.
If that happens I am going to have the gloat of all gloats at the hemming and hawing and the screeching of handbrakes as the Cameron loyalists attempt to execute a U-turn without looking ridiculous.
A nice thought, but unlikely in the extreme
I very much doubt we would be where we are now in this process if there was the scintilla of a possibility of Cameron not getting a "deal" he feels he can go out and sell after tomorrow.
Even the essay crisis PM wouldn't be that lax in his planning. There'll be some grunt this evening and overnight but it's all crossing Ts and dotting Is at this point. The deal was done weeks ago, this is getting it in a form of words that every party with skin in the game can be happy with.
From Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles "In the event of Brexit, your manhood, such as it is, will shrivel to the size of a pea; your bowels will disgorge toads in their slime; your stomach will become a nest of worms, and your throat will brim with their bile. All your life, you will be a toad-shitting, bile spitting, shuddering wretch."
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
None of the above are scare stories. Politics, like life is so often about the least worst option - once you accept that you can begin to relax and enjoy it.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
You must be mad to continue engaging with that poster on this issue.
I assume you gave up because you had no cogent or reasonable answers. Simply running away when things get tough is hardly a great way to make your point.
Never given up - occasionally got bored, went to bed, watched TV, sunbathed.........
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
None of the above are scare stories. Politics, like life is so often about the least worst option - once you accept that you can begin to relax and enjoy it.
Going by that logic - we should have a referendum and a renegotiation every month - claw back a tiny bit at a time until we have exactly what we want.
Thanks. On January 28, 1999 the BBC Today programme‘s business news led on a claim that the Bank of America was to move its European head office from London to Frankfurt because of Britain’s refusal to join the euro. When the bank later put out a statement that the report was “completely untrue”, the BBC ignored it.
Summary: * post-refugee crisis people have warmed to curbing child benefits for migrants, though Eastern European countries are having to swallow hard; * sympathy for view that non-Euro countries can't be forced into action by Euro majority, * some regret over watering down of "ever closer union", but realistically it's not making progress at the moment; * annoyance that Cameron declined to engage with wider spectrum in European Parliament, but they'll probably go along; if referendum passes, actual full implementation will mean a new Treaty, after the German elections in 2017.
That is brilliantly wrong headed. So by your reckoning the claims about 3 million jobs lost is not a scare story but a positive reason for staying in. And the claims that we will be swamped by millions of immigrants who will want to rape all our daughters is not a scare story but simply a positive message for Leaving?
Your so called logic is quite ridiculous.
The 3 million jobs line is a scare story, as is the AA's nonsense about petrol prices.
A possible loss of 1% to 2% per annum GDP over a couple of years is not a scare story, but a reasonable independent estimate from Credit Suisse (there are many others of course, mostly in roughly the same ballpark). It might not be right, but it's the best we can do.
But in using it as a reason to stay you are still actually using a negative reason. You need to give us a positive vision of REMAIN. A reason to want to stay in rather than a reason not to leave.
Alongside the huge immigration scare story, LEAVE (or at least my vision which is EEA membership) have an wide array of positive reasons for getting out. They include but are not limited to:
Huge savings in what we pay to the EU, The ability to trade with the rest of the world without the restrictions imposed by the EU. The ability to set our laws to suit our own country's needs. A positive farming policy tailored to our own needs both economic and environmental. A control of our fishing grounds which allows us to have a realistically sustainable fishing policy. Comprehensive tax policies which can be voted for and altered by our own Parliament rather than being dictated by an external organisation. An energy policy which meets our own needs for energy supply.
And for me perhaps the biggest.
The ability to dump the people making the rules every 5 years if we, as citizens, do not agree with them.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
None of the above are scare stories. Politics, like life is so often about the least worst option - once you accept that you can begin to relax and enjoy it.
Going by that logic - we should have a referendum and a renegotiation every month - claw back a tiny bit at a time until we have exactly what we want.
I suspect ogh would like that option - good for business - but no, I simply meant that there are in my view bigger downsides to Leave than remain. The EU is not perfect and neither is the UK - I think the current negotiations would be better for us if they succeed than where we are now. but you know it's not a great big deal if things didn't change. Whereas leaving the EU is a big unknown with some likely at least short/medium term hits. At my age they are the ones that matter.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
If we limited migration of course we would have lower GDP. What matters for wellbeing of British citizens is GDP per capita, but banks don't really care about that.
Sure, if voters want to make that trade-off, that's democracy. As long as they are not conned into thinking there is no downside, it's fine.
However, the link I gave is useful because it's gives the independent views of informed observers who have no axe to grind. Doesn't guarantee they are right, of course.
International banks with offices in the UK and various European countries? Of course they have an axe to grind Or to put it more neutrally an interest in the outcome. Doesn't mean they are wrong, of course.
Anyone here had a brace on their teeth? Does it hurt?
Lots of different types of braces Sam, from metal monstrosities to an elastic band. Youngest had his teeth done yonks ago and found it bothersome while brushing teeth but not painful.
Well worth all the hassle in the long run with many health benfits as well as beauty
If we limited migration of course we would have lower GDP. What matters for wellbeing of British citizens is GDP per capita, but banks don't really care about that.
Sure, if voters want to make that trade-off, that's democracy. As long as they are not conned into thinking there is no downside, it's fine.
However, the link I gave is useful because it's gives the independent views of informed observers who have no axe to grind. Doesn't guarantee they are right, of course.
International banks with offices in the UK and various European countries? Of course they have an axe to grind Or to put it more neutrally an interest in the outcome. Doesn't mean they are wrong, of course.
In any event, these are arguments about rounding errors.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
If we limited migration of course we would have lower GDP. What matters for wellbeing of British citizens is GDP per capita, but banks don't really care about that.
Sure, if voters want to make that trade-off, that's democracy. As long as they are not conned into thinking there is no downside, it's fine.
However, the link I gave is useful because it's gives the independent views of informed observers who have no axe to grind. Doesn't guarantee they are right, of course.
International banks with offices in the UK and various European countries? Of course they have an axe to grind Or to put it more neutrally an interest in the outcome. Doesn't mean they are wrong, of course.
The thing is, the City s probably going to lose some business whether we stay in or come out. The Eurozone is going through ever closer union. They want their currency traded in their own zone, and who can blame them.
That leaves what's left. Which is still pretty huge. And the City, for me, would be in a far better position to compete for what's left if we were out than if we were in. Stay in, we lose it all. Come out, we keep a big chunk and get the chance to market ourselves as a giant safe haven.
Good. This is an area of politics that at least 3 parties have abused. A crackdown would benefit democracy. If it removes Feldman then morale would improve inside the Conservatives.
Anyone here had a brace on their teeth? Does it hurt?
Lots of different types of braces Sam, from metal monstrosities to an elastic band. Youngest had his teeth done yonks ago and found it bothersome while brushing teeth but not painful.
Well worth all the hassle in the long run with many health benfits as well as beauty
Cheers... Got them going on the lower teeth on Tuesday...
Saying 'Thufferin' Thuccotath' a big possibility too I hear!
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Where those rules are made by the ECB we get no say at all. None.
In practice if we stay in we get a chance to make our case but the likely reality will be we will be outvoted by the Eurozone states under QMV. So I question whether staying in really does give us a say.
If - as is reported - France wants to impose rules on all states, including those in the Eurozone, there is a reason for that. They're not doing it out of tidiness. They're doing it because they don't want to face a competitor within the EU but not within the Eurozone. That suggests to me that we would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.
'In any event, these are arguments about rounding errors.'
Well indeed - when a friend of mine worked on a study of this kind for a certain pro-EU client a while back he found himself besieged with irritated emails from that client demanding to know why the economic effects mentioned in the literature survey weren't 'much bigger'.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
You have this backwards. If we leave we can regulate our own banks. If we stay we have to follow European single rulebook, which will be decided by the Eurozone without regard for UK interest, as interpreted by ECB. The way shares are traded can't actually be changed too much (unless Eurozone wants to cut off their companies from every major financial hub in the world, losing many companies in the process). Whereas things like pay levels, capital requirements, banned activity very much can and will be changed dramatically if we stay in.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Where those rules are made by the ECB we get no say at all. None.
In practice if we stay in we get a chance to make our case but the likely reality will be we will be outvoted by the Eurozone states under QMV. So I question whether staying in really does give us a say.
If - as is reported - France wants to impose rules on all states, including those in the Eurozone, there is a reason for that. They're not doing it out of tidiness. They're doing it because they don't want to face a competitor within the EU but not within the Eurozone. That suggests to me that we would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.
The EU recently concluded a trade deal with Colombia. Did they ask the Colombians to accept the ECB as regulator of their financial services industry? Did they ask the Colombians to sign up to free movement?
No they concluded a trade deal. And so we can do the same.
Momentum, the hard-Left group backed by Jeremy Corbyn, wants to replace Labour Party branches because they are no longer “effective political spaces”, according to leaked minutes from a leading local group.
An email circulated by Lambeth Momentum – an area of London represented by leading moderate MP Chuka Umunna – told members that the group should now become the “replacement space” for activism until Labour is “politicised”.
Good. This is an area of politics that at least 3 parties have abused. A crackdown would benefit democracy. If it removes Feldman then morale would improve inside the Conservatives.
Looks like Crick had the story. It's to do with national vs local spending limits. In this case they had a single marginal (Thanet South, against Farage) surrounded by absolutely safe seats, yet had two hotels full of activists for weeks with the bill sent to the national campaign rather than classed as local spending which it clearly was.
If the bill had gone to the local campaign it would have put them over the limits for local spending in that constituency. One imagines that everyone does the same, but this particularly egrarious example got spotted by a sharp eyed hack - probably on a tip off from someone who noticed two hotels full of activists at the time and wondered out loud who was paying the bill.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Not if we join the EEA.
EEA members are able to incorporate EU legislation into the EEA but do not, AFAIK, have a direct input into the primary legislative process.
Anyone here had a brace on their teeth? Does it hurt?
Lots of different types of braces Sam, from metal monstrosities to an elastic band. Youngest had his teeth done yonks ago and found it bothersome while brushing teeth but not painful.
Well worth all the hassle in the long run with many health benfits as well as beauty
Cheers... Got them going on the lower teeth on Tuesday... Saying 'Thufferin' Thuccotath' a big possibility too I hear!
A wise investment. Daughter got them from 14 - 15 for £3k. At 20 her teeth look like those that Hollywood actresses aspire to have.
Mr. Betting, from the other side of the track, I'd agree. Whilst my teeth aren't Pogue level bad, they're pretty gappy and I somewhat regret not having braces (it was a 50/50 decision, but asking a kid if he'd like to be mocked for the next few years isn't a 50/50 choice...).
'You have this backwards. If we leave we can regulate our own banks. If we stay we have to follow European single rulebook, which will be decided by the Eurozone without regard for UK interest, as interpreted by ECB. The way shares are traded can't actually be changed too much (unless Eurozone wants to cut off their companies from every major financial hub in the world, losing many companies in the process). Whereas things like pay levels, capital requirements, banned activity very much can and will be changed dramatically if we stay in.'
Correct.
If the Eurozone really wants to go in a French direction, closing off its capital markets and hamstringing its own financial institutions, then there is nothing we can do about it. We have already long ago given up the veto we had which could have stopped such things.
But we can prevent our own financial sector being hobbled by stupid rules, by leaving the EU. Of course we will then have to adjust to whatever the Eurozone does, just as our financial sector now works with and around regulations in the USA to sell its products there - and does so extremely successfully (more so indeed, than with the EU, relatively speaking).
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
The market will innovate just as it did with the eurodollar. Even then, European trade is falling as a proportion of world trade, within the EU our trade deals with developing nations will always favour goods, alone we can negotiate for services, specifically financial services. As Asian and Latin American service industries grow we would be much better served developing trade relations with them for services than we would remaining in the EU hoping that we can limit the damage they want to inflict on the City.
Also remember that if the terms of trade with the EU are unfairly being prejudiced we can always go to the WTO.
International banks with offices in the UK and various European countries? Of course they have an axe to grind Or to put it more neutrally an interest in the outcome.
Not really. Some of them are Japanese and US banks. Sure they have offices here and in other European countries, but that's hardly an interest in the outcome. Why would they want to talk up the risks of Brexit if they didn't think it would make much difference?
Pull the other one Richard - broker research is never independent.
There are plenty of studies out there that show very different results.
Broker research on individual companies is often not independent, because it's linked to business from that company. That doesn't apply here. Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.
Those supporting Leave often see conspiracies everywhere. I don't know why.
As for studies showing the opposite, yes there are a few. But the vast bulk of independent studies agree with the broad thrust of those views quoted on Reuters.
At the end of the day it's a judgement call. My judgement is that there would be a significant (but not disastrous) hit to the economy caused by the uncertainty following a Leave. What would happen thereafter is obviously more speculative; if we stay in an EEA-style deal, the long-term effect would be minimal provided we didn't fall prey to a hit on the City as a result of no longer having the institutional protection of the treaties. If we go for a looser arrangement, I think the long-term effect would probably be negative, but it's very hard to be specific.
Others may take a different judgement on the same facts. That's fine by me, it's how I make money out of political betting.
I've always been more impressed by the creation of Italy and Germany than Spain. Spain 400 years earlier was a large mixture of tiny nations but by the time of its formation had long been Castile and Aragon. Spain was a simple merger of these two nations by the time it was created.
Germany and Italy OTOH had a lot more independent states only recently before their unification.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Where those rules are made by the ECB we get no say at all. None.
In practice if we stay in we get a chance to make our case but the likely reality will be we will be outvoted by the Eurozone states under QMV. So I question whether staying in really does give us a say.
If - as is reported - France wants to impose rules on all states, including those in the Eurozone, there is a reason for that. They're not doing it out of tidiness. They're doing it because they don't want to face a competitor within the EU but not within the Eurozone. That suggests to me that we would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.
No, I agree, we have discussed this, and hence my qualification "to a greater or lesser extent" and the nub imo is the following: do we have more influence to draft such legislation inside or outside the EU. For me the answer is trivial - it must be inside because outside we get no influence. We have also discussed rapporteurs and have agreed that out of the EU we wouldn't have one. Kay Swinburne may not have been as effective as we wished, but she was fighting our side in the MiFID negotiations.
As for the ECB, you, together with the BBC, are slightly in danger of conflating EU member and eurozone member. As you have said, the ECB can legislate for euro-denominated business all day long and it has every right to do so. So SSM, SRM, CRD-IV are all legitimate measures for the eurozone. But we ain't in the eurozone so we can choose or not to join in as per the negotiating text.
But in any case I didn't notice us opting out of the Basel protocols and I have no objection to us adhering to various capital ratio requirements, whoever drafted them.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Not if we join the EEA.
EEA members are able to incorporate EU legislation into the EEA but do not, AFAIK, have a direct input into the primary legislative process.
They have complete input into every stage of the legislative process up to the final vote. They can also introduce legislative proposals under the EEA agreement if they wish.
'Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.'
That is so naive it is quite extraordinary. Ratings agencies and large banks are some of the most political and politicised institutions you could possibly come across. There is massive interference in what analysts can and do write.
You clearly have no experience whatever in this area, or are being deliberately misleading.
A famous economics essay features a pencil (yes, a pencil) arguing that “not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me.” Is the pencil just bragging? In any case, what can the pencil teach us about our global interdependence — and the proper role of government in the economy?
Whilst in the short term this is meaning a lot of work for me, I wish our beloved Chancellor would stop buggering about with pensions - at least for a year or two..
Pre Budget it's a mad panic and likely to impact the deficit with all the tax relief being banked for those higher earners able to...
International banks with offices in the UK and various European countries? Of course they have an axe to grind Or to put it more neutrally an interest in the outcome.
Not really. Some of them are Japanese and US banks. Sure they have offices here and in other European countries, but that's hardly an interest in the outcome. Why would they want to talk up the risks of Brexit if they didn't think it would make much difference?
Pull the other one Richard - broker research is never independent.
There are plenty of studies out there that show very different results.
Broker research on individual companies is often not independent, because it's linked to business from that company. That doesn't apply here. Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.
Those supporting Leave often see conspiracies everywhere. I don't know why.
As for studies showing the opposite, yes there are a few. But the vast bulk of independent studies agree with the broad thrust of those views quoted on Reuters.
At the end of the day it's a judgement call. My judgement is that there would be a significant (but not disastrous) hit to the economy caused by the uncertainty following a Leave. What would happen thereafter is obviously more speculative; if we stay in an EEA-style deal, the long-term effect would be minimal provided we didn't fall prey to a hit on the City as a result of no longer having the institutional protection of the treaties. If we go for a looser arrangement, I think the long-term effect would probably be negative, but it's very hard to be specific.
Others may take a different judgement on the same facts. That's fine by me, it's how I make money out of political betting.
The very same banks moaning about brexit will be howling at the moon when we stay in and the EU slaps ever more regulations, red tape and restrictions on its already beleaguered and tottering banks.
Whatever anyone says the EU is socialist. It has socialism in its DNA. And if it continues with the policies it has built into its system, no matter how big its economy is now, it is gonna collapse.
'Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.'
That is so naive it is quite extraordinary. Ratings agencies and large banks are some of the most political and politicised institutions you could possibly come across. There is massive interference in what analysts can and do write.
You clearly have no experience whatever in this area, or are being deliberately misleading.
Yeah, yeah, it's all a plot, the evil tentacles of the Eurocrats telling Nomura and Citi what to write about Brexit.
For an organisation which is supposed to be dysfunctional, I have to say the EU's thoroughness in nobbling the entire set of ratings agencies, banks, academics, accountancy firms and independent economic research groups is a wonder to behold.
Anyone here had a brace on their teeth? Does it hurt?
Lots of different types of braces Sam, from metal monstrosities to an elastic band. Youngest had his teeth done yonks ago and found it bothersome while brushing teeth but not painful.
Well worth all the hassle in the long run with many health benfits as well as beauty
Cheers... Got them going on the lower teeth on Tuesday... Saying 'Thufferin' Thuccotath' a big possibility too I hear!
A wise investment. Daughter got them from 14 - 15 for £3k. At 20 her teeth look like those that Hollywood actresses aspire to have.
Some pain when tightened, but only once did it last beyond 24 hours. Also can get uncomfortable if the wire pokes into your gums / you break any of the brackets.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Hasn't Cruz said he'll filibuster it ?
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
You have this backwards. If we leave we can regulate our own banks. If we stay we have to follow European single rulebook, which will be decided by the Eurozone without regard for UK interest, as interpreted by ECB. The way shares are traded can't actually be changed too much (unless Eurozone wants to cut off their companies from every major financial hub in the world, losing many companies in the process). Whereas things like pay levels, capital requirements, banned activity very much can and will be changed dramatically if we stay in.
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Which would be quite a shift in the balance of power in SCOTUS to have Scalia replaced by a moderate.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Not if we join the EEA.
EEA members are able to incorporate EU legislation into the EEA but do not, AFAIK, have a direct input into the primary legislative process.
They have complete input into every stage of the legislative process up to the final vote. They can also introduce legislative proposals under the EEA agreement if they wish.
Interesting, thanks. I was looking here which only mentions the EEA being able to adopt EU measures, not help formulate them. Would be interested in the text where this is explained.
Edit: that said I am unsure also as to the weight allocated to EEA member concerns vs EU member concerns..
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
'Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.'
That is so naive it is quite extraordinary. Ratings agencies and large banks are some of the most political and politicised institutions you could possibly come across. There is massive interference in what analysts can and do write.
You clearly have no experience whatever in this area, or are being deliberately misleading.
Yeah, yeah, it's all a plot, the evil tentacles of the Eurocrats telling Nomura and Citi what to write about Brexit.
For an organisation which is supposed to be dysfunctional, I have to say the EU's thoroughness in nobbling the entire set of ratings agencies, banks, academics, accountancy firms and independent economic research groups is a wonder to behold.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Hasn't Cruz said he'll filibuster it ?
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
It's a political poker game. Obama has the first move, he can choose to be reasonable or partisan.
The Republicans are trying to goad him into being partisan, but if the president chooses this route it could be to his advantage in the run up to the election. If he is reasonable he can paint the republicans as partisan in the short term while he is playing straight.
The Republicans actually want it done & dusted, they know they can't reasonably hold up the appointment through the summer without it playing into the hands of the Democrats in the run up to the election.
If Obama goes for the partisan route, that nominee will be quickly rejected by the Senate, then a second nominee will be appointed. If he goes for the reasonable option they will be confirmed after a little messing around.
The big prize for both parties is the Presidency, he or she will have at least two more Justices to nominate in the next 4 years. They know that the issue is important to the Democrat base and turnout at the Presidential election, so for all the bluff and bluster we'll have a new Justice by late spring.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Which would be quite a shift in the balance of power in SCOTUS to have Scalia replaced by a moderate.
Broadly, it would shift SCOTUS back to before O'Connor being replaced by Alito.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Which would be quite a shift in the balance of power in SCOTUS to have Scalia replaced by a moderate.
Broadly, it would shift SCOTUS back to before O'Connor being replaced by Alito.
It also is unlikely to be the final shift in the years to come with three other Justices in their 70s.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Which would be quite a shift in the balance of power in SCOTUS to have Scalia replaced by a moderate.
The Republicans shouldn't overly worry - one of Breyer, Kennedy or Ginsburg is likely to retire or otherwise go. They can be replaced by a hardcore conservative.
If they fuck up the election, then there'll be another liberal justice - at best they can hope for a like for like Kennedy replacement.
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
And I understand that concern. It is a known unknown.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Hasn't Cruz said he'll filibuster it ?
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
It's a political poker game. Obama has the first move, he can choose to be reasonable or partisan.
The Republicans are trying to goad him into being partisan, but if the president chooses this route it could be to his advantage in the run up to the election. If he is reasonable he can paint the republicans as partisan in the short term while he is playing straight.
The Republicans actually want it done & dusted, they know they can't reasonably hold up the appointment through the summer without it playing into the hands of the Democrats in the run up to the election.
If Obama goes for the partisan route, that nominee will be quickly rejected by the Senate, then a second nominee will be appointed. If he goes for the reasonable option they will be confirmed after a little messing around.
The big prize for both parties is the Presidency, he or she will have at least two more Justices to nominate in the next 4 years. They know that the issue is important to the Democrat base and turnout at the Presidential election, so for all the bluff and bluster we'll have a new Justice by late spring.
Maybe.
Ted Cruz can't be seen to be backing down on this one in particular (Perhaps Rubio too but to a lesser degree), Trump has the luxury that he can't affect the outcome !
Ted Cruz needs to attempt to filibuster it and pass out or something so the vote can take place, he can then play the martyr. Well maybe not, but he needs a way to cry foul in his own side's tactics or some such. It'll be interesting to see if he can engineer such a situation. SCOTUS is a massive issue for Cruz's base.
We have no input into US financial regulations but our financial sector does very well selling to the US.
Our input into Eurozone rules in the future is also going to be effectively zero. We will succeed or fail in that market based on our own efforts and just how restrictive they choose to be - but we can't do anything about the latter now. Our 'influence' is theoretical.
Comments
Who gets into Number 10 quicker: #LarryTheCat or Boris Johnson? https://t.co/HgriDEqAEZ
If he's "negotiating" anything hard at 1.30pm it must be negotiating his way out of the airport!
(And I'm not convinced he'd do a better job of that!)
This 20% number comes from a silly piece by Goldmans which assumes the UK would have to close its current account deficit more or less immediately after Brexit. That is nonsense, as they well know.
And once again, we had all this silly scaremongering back in the 1990s, with various banks and rating agencies claiming sterling/foreign investment/the economy would collapse if the UK stayed out of the euro.
While at the same time, various firms were arguing for euro entry on the basis of sterling being 'overvalued' compared to its supposed likely euro entry rate i.e. they wanted to join the euro in order to get a devaluation!
It's all c***
and that was only for a reduction in the VAT rate.
Staying in will be taken by the EU as a green light to ever closer union and we will not be able to negotiate any opt outs of anything ever again - we will be "all-in" in their minds - and should be grateful for the crumbs they have tossed us this week to boot.
no thanks
looking at census statistics you can't deny the plague of frogs
Your so called logic is quite ridiculous.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/is-russell-brand-thinking-about-going-to-university/
There is just too many avenues for gags...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNt4FdfiHsk
This is me
http://tinyurl.com/zo6qwvc
A possible loss of 1% to 2% per annum GDP over a couple of years is not a scare story, but a reasonable independent estimate from Credit Suisse (there are many others of course, mostly in roughly the same ballpark). It might not be right, but it's the best we can do.
A nice thought, but unlikely in the extreme
Even the essay crisis PM wouldn't be that lax in his planning. There'll be some grunt this evening and overnight but it's all crossing Ts and dotting Is at this point. The deal was done weeks ago, this is getting it in a form of words that every party with skin in the game can be happy with.
OK, we've now reached peak lunacy. NUS is attempting to "no platform" Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate for "Islamophobia".
From Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles "In the event of Brexit, your manhood, such as it is, will shrivel to the size of a pea; your bowels will disgorge toads in their slime; your stomach will become a nest of worms, and your throat will brim with their bile. All your life, you will be a toad-shitting, bile spitting, shuddering wretch."
was “completely untrue”, the BBC ignored it.
http://www.cicero.de/weltbuehne/camerons-eu-reformplaene-ideen-die-ankommen/60512
Summary:
* post-refugee crisis people have warmed to curbing child benefits for migrants, though Eastern European countries are having to swallow hard;
* sympathy for view that non-Euro countries can't be forced into action by Euro majority,
* some regret over watering down of "ever closer union", but realistically it's not making progress at the moment;
* annoyance that Cameron declined to engage with wider spectrum in European Parliament, but they'll probably go along; if referendum passes, actual full implementation will mean a new Treaty, after the German elections in 2017.
Alongside the huge immigration scare story, LEAVE (or at least my vision which is EEA membership) have an wide array of positive reasons for getting out. They include but are not limited to:
Huge savings in what we pay to the EU,
The ability to trade with the rest of the world without the restrictions imposed by the EU.
The ability to set our laws to suit our own country's needs.
A positive farming policy tailored to our own needs both economic and environmental.
A control of our fishing grounds which allows us to have a realistically sustainable fishing policy.
Comprehensive tax policies which can be voted for and altered by our own Parliament rather than being dictated by an external organisation.
An energy policy which meets our own needs for energy supply.
And for me perhaps the biggest.
The ability to dump the people making the rules every 5 years if we, as citizens, do not agree with them.
Pull the other one Richard - broker research is never independent.
There are plenty of studies out there that show very different results.
Nothing to fret over if you want straight teeth.
Edit.
Although to be fair the Prisoner voting issue was the ECJ not the ECHR
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Well worth all the hassle in the long run with many health benfits as well as beauty
That leaves what's left. Which is still pretty huge. And the City, for me, would be in a far better position to compete for what's left if we were out than if we were in. Stay in, we lose it all. Come out, we keep a big chunk and get the chance to market ourselves as a giant safe haven.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/18/electoral-commission-investigating-tory-election-spending/
Saying 'Thufferin' Thuccotath' a big possibility too I hear!
In practice if we stay in we get a chance to make our case but the likely reality will be we will be outvoted by the Eurozone states under QMV. So I question whether staying in really does give us a say.
If - as is reported - France wants to impose rules on all states, including those in the Eurozone, there is a reason for that. They're not doing it out of tidiness. They're doing it because they don't want to face a competitor within the EU but not within the Eurozone. That suggests to me that we would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.
Well indeed - when a friend of mine worked on a study of this kind for a certain pro-EU client a while back he found himself besieged with irritated emails from that client demanding to know why the economic effects mentioned in the literature survey weren't 'much bigger'.
Who’s sitting next to who? The seating plan for #EUCO #Brexit talks later this afternoon https://t.co/upPMBR9JSI
One for conspiracy theorists.
No they concluded a trade deal. And so we can do the same.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12161618/Momentum-wants-to-replace-local-Labour-Party-branches-leaked-minutes-from-Lambeth-group-show.html
If the bill had gone to the local campaign it would have put them over the limits for local spending in that constituency. One imagines that everyone does the same, but this particularly egrarious example got spotted by a sharp eyed hack - probably on a tip off from someone who noticed two hotels full of activists at the time and wondered out loud who was paying the bill.
Then put a helmet on, next time you're on your motorbike.
Daughter got them from 14 - 15 for £3k. At 20 her teeth look like those that Hollywood actresses aspire to have.
Correct.
If the Eurozone really wants to go in a French direction, closing off its capital markets and hamstringing its own financial institutions, then there is nothing we can do about it. We have already long ago given up the veto we had which could have stopped such things.
But we can prevent our own financial sector being hobbled by stupid rules, by leaving the EU. Of course we will then have to adjust to whatever the Eurozone does, just as our financial sector now works with and around regulations in the USA to sell its products there - and does so extremely successfully (more so indeed, than with the EU, relatively speaking).
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Also remember that if the terms of trade with the EU are unfairly being prejudiced we can always go to the WTO.
Those supporting Leave often see conspiracies everywhere. I don't know why.
As for studies showing the opposite, yes there are a few. But the vast bulk of independent studies agree with the broad thrust of those views quoted on Reuters.
At the end of the day it's a judgement call. My judgement is that there would be a significant (but not disastrous) hit to the economy caused by the uncertainty following a Leave. What would happen thereafter is obviously more speculative; if we stay in an EEA-style deal, the long-term effect would be minimal provided we didn't fall prey to a hit on the City as a result of no longer having the institutional protection of the treaties. If we go for a looser arrangement, I think the long-term effect would probably be negative, but it's very hard to be specific.
Others may take a different judgement on the same facts. That's fine by me, it's how I make money out of political betting.
Trump 32
Cruz 19
Rubio 15
Carson 9
Bush 9
Kasich 6
Germany and Italy OTOH had a lot more independent states only recently before their unification.
As for the ECB, you, together with the BBC, are slightly in danger of conflating EU member and eurozone member. As you have said, the ECB can legislate for euro-denominated business all day long and it has every right to do so. So SSM, SRM, CRD-IV are all legitimate measures for the eurozone. But we ain't in the eurozone so we can choose or not to join in as per the negotiating text.
But in any case I didn't notice us opting out of the Basel protocols and I have no objection to us adhering to various capital ratio requirements, whoever drafted them.
That is so naive it is quite extraordinary. Ratings agencies and large banks are some of the most political and politicised institutions you could possibly come across. There is massive interference in what analysts can and do write.
You clearly have no experience whatever in this area, or are being deliberately misleading.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/i-pencil/
Pre Budget it's a mad panic and likely to impact the deficit with all the tax relief being banked for those higher earners able to...
Whatever anyone says the EU is socialist. It has socialism in its DNA. And if it continues with the policies it has built into its system, no matter how big its economy is now, it is gonna collapse.
Trump 30
Cruz 23
Rubio 15
Bush 9
Carson 7
Kasich 6
I think this poll is pretty accurate.
For an organisation which is supposed to be dysfunctional, I have to say the EU's thoroughness in nobbling the entire set of ratings agencies, banks, academics, accountancy firms and independent economic research groups is a wonder to behold.
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
for a film about Eurodance
starring Haddaway:
http://igg.me/at/neverendingdream
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
Edit: that said I am unsure also as to the weight allocated to EEA member concerns vs EU member concerns..
The Republicans are trying to goad him into being partisan, but if the president chooses this route it could be to his advantage in the run up to the election. If he is reasonable he can paint the republicans as partisan in the short term while he is playing straight.
The Republicans actually want it done & dusted, they know they can't reasonably hold up the appointment through the summer without it playing into the hands of the Democrats in the run up to the election.
If Obama goes for the partisan route, that nominee will be quickly rejected by the Senate, then a second nominee will be appointed. If he goes for the reasonable option they will be confirmed after a little messing around.
The big prize for both parties is the Presidency, he or she will have at least two more Justices to nominate in the next 4 years. They know that the issue is important to the Democrat base and turnout at the Presidential election, so for all the bluff and bluster we'll have a new Justice by late spring.
Maybe.
If they fuck up the election, then there'll be another liberal justice - at best they can hope for a like for like Kennedy replacement.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
Ted Cruz needs to attempt to filibuster it and pass out or something so the vote can take place, he can then play the martyr. Well maybe not, but he needs a way to cry foul in his own side's tactics or some such. It'll be interesting to see if he can engineer such a situation. SCOTUS is a massive issue for Cruz's base.
We have no input into US financial regulations but our financial sector does very well selling to the US.
Our input into Eurozone rules in the future is also going to be effectively zero. We will succeed or fail in that market based on our own efforts and just how restrictive they choose to be - but we can't do anything about the latter now. Our 'influence' is theoretical.