There seems to be a confusion of the important and the urgent. If Britain votes Leave, it will be important for the EU to agree new terms but from its perspective not especially urgent. Certainly it won't seem urgent as compared with bolstering the Eurozone's economy and dealing with any continuing migrant crisis. From an EU perspective, Britain's terms of departure can wait.
That point about lack of priority is important. Whoever is in charge of Britain's negotiating team will not be given time and space, but will be expected to be ending the business uncertainty as soon as possible. Britain will have completely exhausted its stock of goodwill in Brussels, so don't expect any help on this front.
'I don't think those FTAs include services to any meaningful degree, which is the only sector we have an opportunity of building up a surplus. '
The US has a massive services surplus with the EU (US$50bn in 2014). How do they manage?
Probably, Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Intel, etc structuring themselves in such a way that IP profits flow back to the US...
Ireland, not the US
The money doesn't stay in Ireland though, otherwise their parent companies in the US wouldn't be able to spread their largesse?
It doesn't get repatriated to the US, because that would incur a 35% tax charge. So it piles up in Ireland and gets spent on ex-US assets. It's a huge distortion in the global capital markets (I think Apple has something like $250bn in Ireland, Pfizer over $150bn) that exists because US politicians can't get their act together and fix it
I do find it interesting that No. 10 are saying if it's Leave, it's straight into Article 50. The Prime Minister cannot entertain any approach from the EU for a more all-embracing renegotiation, as he would be effectively admitting that if he had tried harder, better terms were there for the tabling by the EU.
And I have no doubt, if the EU are faced with the inevitable departure of the UK, they will offer something. They have always blinked before. They would blink again. So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
I think a 30 day adjustment in the exchange rate is a key reason to vote in for the next 30 years.
Well, if you want to ignore the warning signs that a Leave vote would damage the UK economy (perhaps only for two or three years, of course), then that's up to you.
In fact there is a hell of a lot of good Norwegian source material on what the EEA looks like, the website of the Norwegian mission in Brussels has a load of good stuff.
For remainers, the illusion of sovereignty is just that. Whatever we vote for and whatever we decide in the UK, we are faced with the same outcome.
They may be right, but its time, I think, to test these assertions.
As long as you are aware of the potential cost of the experiment, that's fine.
The reason that Sterling dropped this morning was not because foreign exchange dealers all over the world are cheerleading for Cameron.
We were never told we were in an experiment in the first place.... We joined and voted to say in the EEC. A trading arrangement. Not an experimental proto super-state.
And I have no doubt, if the EU are faced with the inevitable departure of the UK, they will offer something. They have always blinked before. They would blink again.
Who is 'they'? And by what mechanism would they blink?
I do find it interesting that No. 10 are saying if it's Leave, it's straight into Article 50. The Prime Minister cannot entertain any approach from the EU for a more all-embracing renegotiation, as he would be effectively admitting that if he had tried harder, better terms were there for the tabling by the EU.
And I have no doubt, if the EU are faced with the inevitable departure of the UK, they will offer something. They have always blinked before. They would blink again. So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
No, Cameron would be respecting the will of the British People.
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
I think a 30 day adjustment in the exchange rate is a key reason to vote in for the next 30 years.
Well, if you want to ignore the warning signs that a Leave vote would damage the UK economy (perhaps only for two or three years, of course), then that's up to you.
Personally I take a more responsible view.
Staying in will damage it for 30+ years.
Not responsible at all to shackle us to a corpse with a fresh mandate for chains.
There does seem something rather odd about a group of people who have moaned for decades about how the EU doesn't respect the public's votes in referenda and makes them vote again arguing passionately that they should be given a second vote in the event that the vote goes the way that they want it to go.
And I have no doubt, if the EU are faced with the inevitable departure of the UK, they will offer something. They have always blinked before. They would blink again.
Who is 'they'? And by what mechanism would they blink?
"They" are the same people Cameron sat around with in Paris to get this renegotiation. No doubt leant on heavily by a few of the EU power-elite. Do Merkel and Hollande really want to be going into their respective elections, with the EU looking sickly as one of its largest net contributors walks away? No, I would suggest. And they would blink by offering to suspend the Article 50 procedure, until there had been exploratory talks on Reneg Redux.
So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
No, Cameron would be respecting the will of the British People.
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
Clearly some of the Leave side are having doubts about whether they actually want to leave.
This is not surprising, and is the same process by which currently undecided voters will move towards Remain; the alternatives don't actually look terribly appealing, or at least the case for the alternatives is very ill-defined.
I did warn about this danger, some four years ago. Real graft was needed to address this problem, and it hasn't been done.
So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
No, Cameron would be respecting the will of the British People.
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
Yawn.
The people votes out.
(a) The EU makes a meaningful new offer:
(i) there can be a second referendum - giving the people the chance to consider it (ii) the government can reject it out of hand - feels unlikely if it is a lot better (iii) the government accepts without consulting - politically impossible
There does seem something rather odd about a group of people who have moaned for decades about how the EU doesn't respect the public's votes in referenda and makes them vote again arguing passionately that they should be given a second vote in the event that the vote goes the way that they want it to go.
Cameron promised them a vote, is giving them a vote, they think they will win the vote, and now they are unhappy that the result would stand.
There does seem something rather odd about a group of people who have moaned for decades about how the EU doesn't respect the public's votes in referenda and makes them vote again arguing passionately that they should be given a second vote in the event that the vote goes the way that they want it to go.
There does seem something rather odd about a group of people who have moaned for decades about how the EU doesn't respect the public's votes in referenda and makes them vote again arguing passionately that they should be given a second vote in the event that the vote goes the way that they want it to go.
Only if the offer changes.
The people have the right to change their mind if the facts change.
So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
No, Cameron would be respecting the will of the British People.
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
Clearly some of the Leave side are having doubts about whether they actually want to leave.
This is not surprising, and is the same process by which currently undecided voters will move towards Remain; the alternatives don't actually look terribly appealing, or at least the case for the alternatives is very ill-defined.
I did warn about this danger, some four years ago. Real graft was needed to address this problem, and it hasn't been done.
Real graft was needed to be done to get a deal that stopped us having a viable Leave movement. And it hasn't been done.
A better deal would have put EU membership to bed. That is Cameron's ultimate failure. He can't deliver the British people. Not without laughable threats that demean him and his office.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Almost everything Remain has to say is downbeat. They really don't seem to have much faith in Britain.
If we leave the EU all the big firms will move out of GB. If we leave the EU Russia will be a greater threat. If we leave the EU we still won't be able to control immigration. If we leave the EU we will still have to comply with EU directives, but with no influence. If we leave the EU we won't be able to fight terrorism effectively.
This is quite simply a load of bollocks. Britain has come through much worse times than anything that will emerge as a consequence of leaving or remaining in the EU. I have no doubt that whatever we choose Britain will be doing just fine in the future, and a damn sight better than all the Emma Thompson like hand wringers seem to think.
How about this for a positive case for the EU:
If we remain in the EU more big firms will move to the UK. If we remain in the EU we'll be able to deal with Russia more effectively. If we remain in the EU we might be able to force Greece to tighten up its borders If we remain in the EU we'll be able to partner with other countries and create a less protectionist, more open Continent. If we remain in the EU, we'll be able to fight terrorism before it reaches our country.
Its easy to dismiss the loss of a few % of economic growth but that equates to about a million people out of work if the wrong decision is taken.
Most of those supposed positive results are simply not realistic. If they were then we would have been able to achieve them over the last few decades.
There is no evidence that remaining in the EU will cause more big firms to move here. We certainly haven't dealt with Russia effectively through being in the EU. Indeed the EU has if anything made the situation worse. The way Greece has been treated by the EU should shame us all. Yes they share a lot of the blame themselves but Greece is a problem caused by the EU not solved by it. EFTA are far more effective at obtaining trade deals with other countries than the EU. This is actually a very positive case for leaving and joining EFTA. In or out of the EU makes absolutely no difference to fighting terrorism.
"They" are the same people Cameron sat around with in Paris to get this renegotiation. No doubt leant on heavily by a few of the EU power-elite. Do Merkel and Hollande really want to be going into their respective elections, with the EU looking sickly as one of its largest net contributors walks away? No, I would suggest. And they would blink by offering to suspend the Article 50 procedure, until there had been exploratory talks on Reneg Redux.
And organise a 27-member unanimity which would be politically unpalatable back home for many of the politicians involved?
This is utter fantasy. If we vote to leave, we'll be invoking Article 50 and we'll leave.
I think a 30 day adjustment in the exchange rate is a key reason to vote in for the next 30 years.
Well, if you want to ignore the warning signs that a Leave vote would damage the UK economy (perhaps only for two or three years, of course), then that's up to you.
Personally I take a more responsible view.
Nice sneer.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
If not, then by implication you think the UK is incapable of profiting from a more open and global trading posture, and is in fact a fading power that should expect to much in the world, not exactly the views of a patriot.
So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
No, Cameron would be respecting the will of the British People.
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
Yawn.
The people votes out.
(a) The EU makes a meaningful new offer:
(i) there can be a second referendum - giving the people the chance to consider it (ii) the government can reject it out of hand - feels unlikely if it is a lot better (iii) the government accepts without consulting - politically impossible
Stop being so pompous Richard. A 1% move in the exchange rate on a single day means sod all.
And the main reason sterling has been softening over the last couple of months or so is that UK interest rate expectations have dropped back sharply. The sterling trade-weighted index and sterling 2 year rates have been tracking each other lower since November.
This seems to be your default setting now - waving your hands around in the air like some geriatric Cassandra
@leighmarshall: On Wednesday @NatCen and @whatukthinks will publish new findings on exactly how Eurosceptic the GB public is and what this means for #euref
"They" are the same people Cameron sat around with in Paris to get this renegotiation. No doubt leant on heavily by a few of the EU power-elite. Do Merkel and Hollande really want to be going into their respective elections, with the EU looking sickly as one of its largest net contributors walks away? No, I would suggest. And they would blink by offering to suspend the Article 50 procedure, until there had been exploratory talks on Reneg Redux.
And organise a 27-member unanimity which would be politically unpalatable back home for many of the politicians involved?
This is utter fantasy. If we vote to leave, we'll be invoking Article 50 and we'll leave.
The 27 is a fiction. It requires a handful of EU leaders. Latvia and Estonia and Malta and Luxembourg really don't hold a pistol to their heads. How do you think a deal was just done in Paris? Because half a dozen countries said it had to be done. And in my scenario, the half dozen are telling the rest "Do you really want the milch cow to Leave? Really??"
I think a 30 day adjustment in the exchange rate is a key reason to vote in for the next 30 years.
Well, if you want to ignore the warning signs that a Leave vote would damage the UK economy (perhaps only for two or three years, of course), then that's up to you.
Personally I take a more responsible view.
Nice sneer.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
If not, then by implication you think the UK is incapable of profiting from a more open and global trading posture, and is in fact a fading power that should expect to much in the world, not exactly the views of a patriot.
It's simple.
Richard is an old man. He loses much more from 2-3 years uncertainty than he gains from years 4-25 in the sunlit uplands. I gain more from the uplands and can ride through the uncertainty.
I am startled to find that in the event Leave wins I will be a more staunch Leaver than some of the people who voted Leave. For crying out loud, do you want to leave the f***ing EU or not?
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Only one: between the UK and Finland, according to Mervyn King.
Indeed, and that was largely technical (because Finland invaded the Soviet Union). Although I think we did bomb some of their ships, but only before the declaration of war.
Actually the Finns never invaded the Soviet Union. They stopped at the pre war borders and only took back the land that had been seized from them by the Russians earlier in the war.
Actually, no. The Finns did indeed stop at the 1939 border[1] on the Karelian isthmus (and if they hadn't, Leningrad would have surely fallen), but in Eastern Karelia they did cross into territories that had neither been part of the Republic of Finland nor its Czarist predecessor the Grand Duchy[2]. Finnish troops reached as far as Lake Onega and took the capital of the Karelian-Finnish SSR, Petrozavodsk.
These incursions were very controversial in Finland, as they were seen as filfilling a far-right irredentist agenda[3]. Some Finnish troops refused to cross the 1939 border.
[1] Actually they did cross the 1939 border on the isthmus, but only enough to establish shorter and more defensible lines.
[2]. There was a lot of pressure immediately after the Finnish Civil War from Finnish irredentists to take advantage of the Russian Civil War to gain Eastern Karelia, and a couple of unsuccessful expeditions composed of "volunteers" not officially backed by the Finnish government into Eastern Karelia did take place.
[3] And indeed, ethnic cleansing of Russians to Finnish-run concentration camps in Karelia did take place.
I think a 30 day adjustment in the exchange rate is a key reason to vote in for the next 30 years.
Well, if you want to ignore the warning signs that a Leave vote would damage the UK economy (perhaps only for two or three years, of course), then that's up to you.
Personally I take a more responsible view.
Nice sneer.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
If not, then by implication you think the UK is incapable of profiting from a more open and global trading posture, and is in fact a fading power that should expect to much in the world, not exactly the views of a patriot.
It's simple.
Richard is an old man. He loses much more from 2-3 years uncertainty than he gains from years 4-25 in the sunlit uplands. I gain more from the uplands and can ride through the uncertainty.
That's really all there is to it...
Well I'm not a young chap Charles but I would happily take the hit if it meant my kids were better off.
@tombradby: Preparing for the @agendaitv tonight, encountered this; When Greenland left in 1982, it spent 3 years negotiating a trade deal with the EEC.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
Yes of course. It is a perfectly respectable argument to say we're better off Out in the long term.
But, unlike some others, I don't kid myself. The short- to medium-term effect of a Leave vote will be a damaging period of uncertainty which will hit the UK economy. The duration and extent of the damage is hard to say; perhaps 1% loss of GDP per year for perhaps two or three years, but no-one really can say for sure.
Obviously one needs to figure that into the calculation, rather than just airily dismiss it.
Sterling fell today over 1% simply because of Boris. That is overlaid on a decline over the last few months partly based on concerns over Brexit. (Personally I'm delighted, as my company has a very large dollar debt due to us on which we were originally expecting to get $1.56 to £1. Currently it's about $1.40)
Good afternoon all. After a few months away from PB.com post-General Election, I return to this site when another huge moment arrives for the country. This website really is superb for discussing the big issues.
Could anyone direct me to where I can download the actual final agreement Cameron got from last week's summit? Thanks in advance.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
Yes of course. It is a perfectly respectable argument to say we're better off Out in the long term.
But, unlike some others, I don't kid myself. The short- to medium-term effect of a Leave vote will be a damaging period of uncertainty which will hit the UK economy. The duration and extent of the damage is hard to say; perhaps 1% loss of GDP per year for perhaps two or three years, but no-one really can say for sure.
Obviously one needs to figure that into the calculation, rather than just airily dismiss it.
Sterling fell today over 1% simply because of Boris. That is overlaid on a decline over the next few months partly based on concerns over Brexit. (Personally I'm delighted, as my company has a very large dollar debt due to us on which we were originally expecting to get $1.56 to £1. Currently it's about $1.40)
1% loss of GDP per year for perhaps two or three years, but no-one really can say for sure.
Osborne and Brown have easily wrecked that much between them and we're still all here.
"They" are the same people Cameron sat around with in Paris to get this renegotiation. No doubt leant on heavily by a few of the EU power-elite. Do Merkel and Hollande really want to be going into their respective elections, with the EU looking sickly as one of its largest net contributors walks away? No, I would suggest. And they would blink by offering to suspend the Article 50 procedure, until there had been exploratory talks on Reneg Redux.
And organise a 27-member unanimity which would be politically unpalatable back home for many of the politicians involved?
This is utter fantasy. If we vote to leave, we'll be invoking Article 50 and we'll leave.
The 27 is a fiction. It requires a handful of EU leaders. Latvia and Estonia and Malta and Luxembourg really don't hold a pistol to their heads. How do you think a deal was just done in Paris? Because half a dozen countries said it had to be done. And in my scenario, the half dozen are telling the rest "Do you really want the milch cow to Leave? Really??"
Drifting from the point a bit.... Whenever a specific moral outrage about immigration happens, the 60s equivalent springs to mind and I wonder 'Whatever became of the Maltese Pimps?' as a reminder that many of these trends are transitory if dealt with properly.
But, perhaps we could return to that and the Maltese could be used to pimp the deal put on offer by the half-dozen?
There seems to be a confusion of the important and the urgent. If Britain votes Leave, it will be important for the EU to agree new terms but from its perspective not especially urgent. Certainly it won't seem urgent as compared with bolstering the Eurozone's economy and dealing with any continuing migrant crisis. From an EU perspective, Britain's terms of departure can wait.
That point about lack of priority is important. Whoever is in charge of Britain's negotiating team will not be given time and space, but will be expected to be ending the business uncertainty as soon as possible. Britain will have completely exhausted its stock of goodwill in Brussels, so don't expect any help on this front.
It would be a hairy period all round.
It would be illegal under WTO rules for new tariffs to be imposed so BMW would still be allowed to export British manufactured engines to their 3 Series assembly plants in the EU so it is probably not urgent.
There may be some inconveniences for financial firms whose passports might expire. I am sure the big brains in big law firms might be able to help them re-structure as branches. Win win.
Comments
That point about lack of priority is important. Whoever is in charge of Britain's negotiating team will not be given time and space, but will be expected to be ending the business uncertainty as soon as possible. Britain will have completely exhausted its stock of goodwill in Brussels, so don't expect any help on this front.
It would be a hairy period all round.
The reason that Sterling dropped this morning was not because foreign exchange dealers all over the world are cheerleading for Cameron.
And I have no doubt, if the EU are faced with the inevitable departure of the UK, they will offer something. They have always blinked before. They would blink again. So Cameron is closing off any chance for a better deal within the EU, so as not to be shown up as a poor negotiator. That would be rather hard to forgive.
Personally I take a more responsible view.
In fact there is a hell of a lot of good Norwegian source material on what the EEA looks like, the website of the Norwegian mission in Brussels has a load of good stuff.
http://www.eu-norway.org/
if they vote Leave, and Cameron says "they didn't really mean it", that would be rather hard to forgive.
@PCollinsTimes: Besides, a second referendum would be wrong. We all know the rules. If people vote Remain or if they vote Out the result has to stand.
Not responsible at all to shackle us to a corpse with a fresh mandate for chains.
This is not surprising, and is the same process by which currently undecided voters will move towards Remain; the alternatives don't actually look terribly appealing, or at least the case for the alternatives is very ill-defined.
I did warn about this danger, some four years ago. Real graft was needed to address this problem, and it hasn't been done.
The people votes out.
(a) The EU makes a meaningful new offer:
(i) there can be a second referendum - giving the people the chance to consider it
(ii) the government can reject it out of hand - feels unlikely if it is a lot better
(iii) the government accepts without consulting - politically impossible
(b) The EU makes no new offer
Out means out.
Not that difficult, is it?
outstanding
The people have the right to change their mind if the facts change.
A better deal would have put EU membership to bed. That is Cameron's ultimate failure. He can't deliver the British people. Not without laughable threats that demean him and his office.
There is no evidence that remaining in the EU will cause more big firms to move here.
We certainly haven't dealt with Russia effectively through being in the EU. Indeed the EU has if anything made the situation worse.
The way Greece has been treated by the EU should shame us all. Yes they share a lot of the blame themselves but Greece is a problem caused by the EU not solved by it.
EFTA are far more effective at obtaining trade deals with other countries than the EU. This is actually a very positive case for leaving and joining EFTA.
In or out of the EU makes absolutely no difference to fighting terrorism.
This is utter fantasy. If we vote to leave, we'll be invoking Article 50 and we'll leave.
Suppose you looked into your crystal ball and found the UK was markedly better off in five years time following a Leave vote, having developed alternative markets in Asia and the Commonwealth. Would you be prepared to trade some short term discomfort for longer term prosperity, or is that not the responsible view.
If not, then by implication you think the UK is incapable of profiting from a more open and global trading posture, and is in fact a fading power that should expect to much in the world, not exactly the views of a patriot.
Stop being so pompous Richard. A 1% move in the exchange rate on a single day means sod all.
And the main reason sterling has been softening over the last couple of months or so is that UK interest rate expectations have dropped back sharply. The sterling trade-weighted index and sterling 2 year rates have been tracking each other lower since November.
This seems to be your default setting now - waving your hands around in the air like some geriatric Cassandra
Richard is an old man. He loses much more from 2-3 years uncertainty than he gains from years 4-25 in the sunlit uplands. I gain more from the uplands and can ride through the uncertainty.
That's really all there is to it...
.@StudentVolWeek launches today with @MinForCivSoc. 10,000+ students are expected to take part – join them: https://t.co/hJySXHe8rb
and Unicorns for EVERYBODY!
New Thread New Thread
These incursions were very controversial in Finland, as they were seen as filfilling a far-right irredentist agenda[3]. Some Finnish troops refused to cross the 1939 border.
[1] Actually they did cross the 1939 border on the isthmus, but only enough to establish shorter and more defensible lines.
[2]. There was a lot of pressure immediately after the Finnish Civil War from Finnish irredentists to take advantage of the Russian Civil War to gain Eastern Karelia, and a couple of unsuccessful expeditions composed of "volunteers" not officially backed by the Finnish government into Eastern Karelia did take place.
[3] And indeed, ethnic cleansing of Russians to Finnish-run concentration camps in Karelia did take place.
But, unlike some others, I don't kid myself. The short- to medium-term effect of a Leave vote will be a damaging period of uncertainty which will hit the UK economy. The duration and extent of the damage is hard to say; perhaps 1% loss of GDP per year for perhaps two or three years, but no-one really can say for sure.
Obviously one needs to figure that into the calculation, rather than just airily dismiss it.
Sterling fell today over 1% simply because of Boris. That is overlaid on a decline over the last few months partly based on concerns over Brexit. (Personally I'm delighted, as my company has a very large dollar debt due to us on which we were originally expecting to get $1.56 to £1. Currently it's about $1.40)
Could anyone direct me to where I can download the actual final agreement Cameron got from last week's summit? Thanks in advance.
Osborne and Brown have easily wrecked that much between them and we're still all here.
But, perhaps we could return to that and the Maltese could be used to pimp the deal put on offer by the half-dozen?
There may be some inconveniences for financial firms whose passports might expire. I am sure the big brains in big law firms might be able to help them re-structure as branches. Win win.