'This is a risk which the UK, as a medium-sized economy hosting one of the world's two most important financial centres, cannot afford'
But not a risk that the Remain side generally wish to acknowledge exists. Or if they do, they quickly gloss over it and focus on silly scare stories instead.
And it goes without saying the PM's 'deal' does virtually nothing to reduce this risk
It's certainly a risk which sensible people acknowledge exists, although Cameron's deal helps a bit. That isn't quite the issue, though, is it? The issue is, starting from where we are now (unfortunately, without the veto on financial regulation which Brown threw away for nothing in return), what can be done about it? Jumping into the EEA, where we'd have no vote at all and no institutional protection at all, cannot be said to mitigate that risk.
So, if we're going to mitigate the risk, it's got to be the Full Monty option, as that Gerard Lyons article you posted yesterday argued. But that means taking on the risk of not having passporting of financial services, and the possible loss of euro clearing.
When it comes to glossing over risks, the Leave side takes the biscuit.
I can't think how our innovative financial services sector will cope with a changing environment- said nobody ever.
Outside, It will be allowed to innovate. Inside the socialists running the show will have it in a straight jacket.
Same here. Gove is putting a lot of effort into this. I've made my first donation to Vote Leave.
I get the feeling good that while Boris was chastised for doing "what was in the best interests for his career" that is precisely what Farage is doing too.
If Farage was serious he could work with the big hitters in Vote Leave. But he'd rather this be about him than actually win the vote. Win the vote and he is redundant, lose it and continue to grumble for years to come. So why not sabotage it with this divisiveness?
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
While you are utterly incapable of acknowledging any risks at all to staying in. You only acknowledge pros and are not balancing pros and cons.
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
'This is a risk which the UK, as a medium-sized economy hosting one of the world's two most important financial centres, cannot afford'
But not a risk that the Remain side generally wish to acknowledge exists. Or if they do, they quickly gloss over it and focus on silly scare stories instead.
And it goes without saying the PM's 'deal' does virtually nothing to reduce this risk
It's certainly a risk which sensible people acknowledge exists, although Cameron's deal helps a bit. That isn't quite the issue, though, is it? The issue is, starting from where we are now (unfortunately, without the veto on financial regulation which Brown threw away for nothing in return), what can be done about it? Jumping into the EEA, where we'd have no vote at all and no institutional protection at all, cannot be said to mitigate that risk.
So, if we're going to mitigate the risk, it's got to be the Full Monty option, as that Gerard Lyons article you posted yesterday argued. But that means taking on the risk of not having passporting of financial services, and the possible loss of euro clearing.
When it comes to glossing over risks, the Leave side takes the biscuit.
The bilateral trade deal option would mean we could innovate around it as we did with the US Eurodollar market. And even if we couldn't, business done by the financial passport or the Euroclearing are tiny slithers of our financial sector. I would guess under 5%.
Meanwhile Cameron deal that you say "helps a bit" hands over entire finance sector, including for the first time non-banks, to Franco-German regulation. So what do you think we should risk? The entire finance sector or the two slithers you mention??
Imagine if Nigel Farage declared that police should be ready to shoot migrants trying to make it from Calais to Britain; saying: ‘I don’t want to do this, but the use of armed force is there as a last resort.’ And imagine that in spite of this — or perhaps because of it — Ukip were to overtake the Labour party in a national poll to become the most popular opposition party. This, in effect, is what is happening in Germany.
That is such bollocks that it disgraces the Spectator - don't they bother to check their articles at all? The Bild survey that they seem to be referring to is this:
which shows the AfD in 4th place on 10%. What the writer has apparently done is take a regional poll in Sachsen-Anhalt, where the AfD inches ahead of the SPD (partly because the ex-Communist Left Party is the main left-wing party in Sachsen-Anhalt and ahead of the AfD), and call it a "national poll".
The latest one shows a CDU bounce and an AfD drop, though I think that's just marginal variation. The basic picture is that there has been a 5-point shift from CDU to AfD, putting the AfD on 10%ish; this happened several months ago and the position has been stable ever since. It's significant, but calling the AfD the "most popular opposition party" is just dumb.
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
We could say the same about resigned Eurofanatical Remainers dismissing any alternatives to EU membership as incredible.
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
What are the cons against democracy, freedom and self determination?
What are the pros of having unelected unsackable people having power over us?
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
What are the cons against democracy, freedom and self determination?
What are the pros of having unelected unsackable people having power over us?
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
While you are utterly incapable of acknowledging any risks at all to staying in. You only acknowledge pros and are not balancing pros and cons.
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
For a start, I acknowledge a lot of the arguments for leaving, both the EEA and Full Monty options have advantages, as I've said many times.
As regards risks, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say there were no risks in staying in. Indeed, I have repeatedly said there are. What I said was that I didn't think the risks of staying in were in any way comparable to those of leaving. This is hardly controversial, is it? After all, there is no Brexit plan. So we don't know what we'd be leaving into. Obviously that's higher risk.
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
There are people on both sides of every argument what won't ever accept counter arguments. But you should always listen to best version of other side of argument.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur".
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two nominees, would they be in aggregate the oldest two main party nominees ever to fight the election? It seems so.
Yes.
Hillary, at 69, would be the oldest Democrat ever to contest the presidency (currently Lewis Cass, who was 66 at the 1848 election); Trump will be 70 in November but not the oldest Republican (Reagan, Dole and McCain were all older).
Between them, they'd break the record by almost nine years. The current record was set in 1984 when Reagan (73) defeated Mondale (56), who between them were about six and a half months older than Cass and Taylor in 1848.
Was that the one when Reagan said he wouldn't take advantage of his opponent's youth and inexperience?
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
While you are utterly incapable of acknowledging any risks at all to staying in. You only acknowledge pros and are not balancing pros and cons.
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
For a start, I acknowledge a lot of the arguments for leaving, both the EEA and Full Monty options have advantages, as I've said many times.
As regards risks, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say there were no risks in staying in. Indeed, I have repeatedly said there are. What I said was that I didn't think the risks of staying in were in any way comparable to those of leaving. This is hardly controversial, is it? After all, there is no Brexit plan. So we don't know what we'd be leaving into. Obviously that's higher risk.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
We could say the same about resigned Eurofanatical Remainers dismissing any alternatives to EU membership as incredible.
Yes, I fully agree. That's why I focus so much on a serious evaluation of the alternatives. And, as I have been saying for four years, why I am so disappointed that the Brexit case has not been properly developed.
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
While you are utterly incapable of acknowledging any risks at all to staying in. You only acknowledge pros and are not balancing pros and cons.
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
For a start, I acknowledge a lot of the arguments for leaving, both the EEA and Full Monty options have advantages, as I've said many times.
As regards risks, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say there were no risks in staying in. Indeed, I have repeatedly said there are. What I said was that I didn't think the risks of staying in were in any way comparable to those of leaving. This is hardly controversial, is it? After all, there is no Brexit plan. So we don't know what we'd be leaving into. Obviously that's higher risk.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
While you are utterly incapable of acknowledging any risks at all to staying in. You only acknowledge pros and are not balancing pros and cons.
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
For a start, I acknowledge a lot of the arguments for leaving, both the EEA and Full Monty options have advantages, as I've said many times.
As regards risks, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say there were no risks in staying in. Indeed, I have repeatedly said there are. What I said was that I didn't think the risks of staying in were in any way comparable to those of leaving. This is hardly controversial, is it? After all, there is no Brexit plan. So we don't know what we'd be leaving into. Obviously that's higher risk.
At what point in its long independent history has Britain ever had a plan? Every government has had policies that have been mutated, altered, changed and reversed by successive governments that could not bind each other.
The idea of a 'plan' is a false notion, to my mind.
We could say the same about resigned Eurofanatical Remainers dismissing any alternatives to EU membership as incredible.
Yes, I fully agree. That's why I focus so much on a serious evaluation of the alternatives. And, as I have been saying for four years, why I am so disappointed that the Brexit case has not been properly developed.
Quite how you can evaluate anything above democracy is beyond me. But there it is.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Imagine if Nigel Farage declared that police should be ready to shoot migrants trying to make it from Calais to Britain; saying: ‘I don’t want to do this, but the use of armed force is there as a last resort.’ And imagine that in spite of this — or perhaps because of it — Ukip were to overtake the Labour party in a national poll to become the most popular opposition party. This, in effect, is what is happening in Germany.
That is such bollocks that it disgraces the Spectator - don't they bother to check their articles at all? The Bild survey that they seem to be referring to is this:
which shows the AfD in 4th place on 10%. What the writer has apparently done is take a regional poll in Sachsen-Anhalt, where the AfD inches ahead of the SPD (partly because the ex-Communist Left Party is the main left-wing party in Sachsen-Anhalt and ahead of the AfD), and call it a "national poll".
The latest one shows a CDU bounce and an AfD drop, though I think that's just marginal variation. The basic picture is that there has been a 5-point shift from CDU to AfD, putting the AfD on 10%ish; this happened several months ago and the position has been stable ever since. It's significant, but calling the AfD the "most popular opposition party" is just dumb.
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur".
The Labour Party are starting to make the Guardian look reasonably right wing....no singing of Tom Jones songs at Welsh rugby, no NFL games in London...sexist train carriages...no shooting suicide bombers....sit down talks with ISIS...
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
We could say the same about resigned Eurofanatical Remainers dismissing any alternatives to EU membership as incredible.
Yes, I fully agree. That's why I focus so much on a serious evaluation of the alternatives. And, as I have been saying for four years, why I am so disappointed that the Brexit case has not been properly developed.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Any new government policy is a risk, as is any tax change or spending adjustment.
By your logic the government shouldn't change anything ever - no matter even it is as awful as the EU.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
The risks will be assessed and managed by the British people, and not by foreign governments, parliaments and unelected bureaucrats.
Personally I think the former are far less risky than the latter.
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two nominees, would they be in aggregate the oldest two main party nominees ever to fight the election? It seems so.
Yes.
Hillary, at 69, would be the oldest Democrat ever to contest the presidency (currently Lewis Cass, who was 66 at the 1848 election); Trump will be 70 in November but not the oldest Republican (Reagan, Dole and McCain were all older).
Between them, they'd break the record by almost nine years. The current record was set in 1984 when Reagan (73) defeated Mondale (56), who between them were about six and a half months older than Cass and Taylor in 1848.
Was that the one when Reagan said he wouldn't take advantage of his opponent's youth and inexperience?
Yes. It was a bit unfair given that Mondale had served as VPOTUS for four years but you can be unfair when you're winning by miles.
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
Dunno, you need to talk to your fellow Leavers, most of who seem to be arguing for no change in that respect.
Personally I agree with you on this, that control over migration is the most powerful argument for leaving the EU/EEA.
"Labour’s Sadiq Khan launched an unprecedented campaign to persuade them to take revenge against Tory rival Zac Goldsmith for backing a British exit from the European Union."
And Khan has the temerity to suggest that Goldsmith is the one playing divisive politics.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
"Labour’s Sadiq Khan launched an unprecedented campaign to persuade them to take revenge against Tory rival Zac Goldsmith for backing a British exit from the European Union."
And Khan has the temerity to suggest that Goldsmith is the one playing divisive politics.
As you can see before the debate Florida was one of the best states for Trump, both in the primary and the GE comparison with Rubio. It confirms that Cruz had already collapsed towards Trump outside of Texas before the debate, and Trump was on his way to 50+, in my opinion the debate stopped temporarily Trump's momentum but if he remains in the 40's on S.Tuesday his momentum will restart, and it's a very short way from 45 to 51.
The last hope for Rubio is that Trump wins Texas forcing Cruz out (although he is already practically out, his voters are going to Trump), and for Fox News to steamroll Trump on the last debate on March 3rd. Though I suspect that if Trump gets a clean sweep of all S.Tuesday states that he will declare the contest over and refuse to go on the FOX debate, sighting that it's over and pointless.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
Dunno, you need to talk to your fellow Leavers, most of who seem to be arguing for no change in that respect.
Personally I agree with you on this, that control over migration is the most powerful argument for leaving the EU/EEA.
Well good to hear someone agreeing with me on that! I don't think people realise that most of us who aren't rich place far more importance on the economic worth of our own family than that of the country... If I sold GDP on the spreads for a chunk and it plummeted, meaning new car, caviar, 4 star daydream, I would be ecstatic.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
What if you thought you could get a trade deal with 99% free trade but with control over migration?? That is what Canada has.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
There are people on both sides of every argument what won't ever accept counter arguments. But you should always listen to best version of other side of argument.
The remain side's argument will be the default position of people who have not been convinced that leave have made a better more secure case. There are so many different voices for leave and the arguing between them is not reassuring for those who really do want to have a credible alternative. Leave need to confirm how they will guarantee trade deals that do not include free movement of labour, how sovereignty is upheld when the ECHR can still prevent us deporting criminals, and provide a realistic time scale in years before we are in at least the same position as now. Indeed if they cannot prove we will be in a better position what is the point of leaving. I believe leave have the more difficult task at present
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
Well I am not sure but the EU want to impose a FTT in all their countries - surely being out London would be exempt - and that can't hurt.
(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024
Skilfully changed from your original point.
Was it?! How so?
I wish I could take the use of "skilfully" as a compliment, but I don't think it was!
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
Well I am not sure but the EU want to impose a FTT in all their countries - surely being out London would be exempt - and that can't hurt.
(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
The FTT is all but dead. However, Cameron's deal leaves us wide open to similar schemes.
The risks of remain carry the bigger potential losses; the risks of leave are containable.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
If you really believed that, you'd be in the EEA camp.
I can't believe how we preach democracy and self determination all around the globe, and yet when it comes to our own we put it in the balance against a trade deal with a sclerotic, undemocratic, declining superpower.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
I always like to assume good faith, but what I sometimes find frustrating (and may cause others to assume bad faith) is when people do not answer questions. For example, I asked why Euro-clearing and financial passport, despite being tiny fraction of finance, should be weighted more than risk to entire finance sector from Eurozone regulation. Assume you just didn't see it.
(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
Actually, those are good examples where I think people are going to be disappointed if we vote Leave. The VAT rules you mention are indeed utterly bonkers - my own company has simple stopped selling to consumers in other EU countries because it's not worth the hassle. It was a very small part of our business anyway, but it does make a bit of a mockery of the Single Market. However, similar rules apply to non-EU countries wanting to sell into the EU. Leaving wouldn't help.
The same is probably true on the full factfind nonsense. Much of that nonsense is as much because of the enthusiasm of UK regulators as EU regulators.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU she would not have made the announcement, the expectation (arrogantly, and apparently incorrectly) was that she could spread the fallout for her folly across all the member states, and they are still trying to foist mandatory relocation - even if you could browbeat other countries into following your lead, how the hell does that work in a free travel area, they will just get on the bus and go back where they want to be.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
Well I am not sure but the EU want to impose a FTT in all their countries - surely being out London would be exempt - and that can't hurt.
(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
The FTT is all but dead. However, Cameron's deal leaves us wide open to similar schemes.
The risks of remain carry the bigger potential losses; the risks of leave are containable.
I believe under the Lisbon Treaty, it can be set up under another treaty by QMV. If so then George Osborne (or his successor) can go whistle - even if he is allowed to stand up and make a case against it - which I understand is the limit of our new negotiated powers.
EU VAT rules...the point was to try and clamp down on the Amazon approach to doing business in the EU. The simple amendment they could / should have made was to have the VAT threshold for each country, so that if you only sell a few odds and ends it wouldn't matter.
One thing I would say is initially I had the same concerns, as one of my businesses sells worldwide, including a significant amount in the EU. However, there is now plenty of software that automates all of it and actually hasn't been too bad for my own business.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
I always like to assume good faith, but what I sometimes find frustrating (and may cause others to assume bad faith) is when people do not answer questions. For example, I asked why Euro-clearing and financial passport, despite being tiny fraction of finance, should be weighted more than risk to entire finance sector from Eurozone regulation. Assume you just didn't see it.
The tariffs even if we fell back on WTO MFN are simply not that large. All the exporters from the UK to the EU in total, were they to pay tariffs at that level and then be reimbursed by the government, would cost the country less that paying the EU membership fees.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
The trouble with those remain people is they haven't offered us a plan. What would Britain look like if we remain?
Mr. Urquhart, it did shaft a load of micro-businesses (stay-at-home types who sold knitting patterns, for example) and drive authors who preferred to sell direct to actually move to Amazon (the retailer doing the VAT work).
It was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and missing the nut but hitting a bystander instead.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
I always like to assume good faith, but what I sometimes find frustrating (and may cause others to assume bad faith) is when people do not answer questions. For example, I asked why Euro-clearing and financial passport, despite being tiny fraction of finance, should be weighted more than risk to entire finance sector from Eurozone regulation. Assume you just didn't see it.
Sorry, I didn't notice that question.
Maybe they shouldn't be given too much weight, but the argument is that the fact that London is the centre for clearing is part of the overall package. Similarly for the financial passport, it's one reason for foreign banks to set up here, and that feeds into the overall attractiveness of London.
I don't claim to be qualified to judge the importance of those particular points, but the City as a whole seems agreed that they are important.
Again, though, I come back to my main point: these issues should all have been examined in depth over the last three or four years. It's no good just saying 'Oh well, I expect it will turn out all right'. At least it's not for me: it seems just too risky.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
I always like to assume good faith, but what I sometimes find frustrating (and may cause others to assume bad faith) is when people do not answer questions. For example, I asked why Euro-clearing and financial passport, despite being tiny fraction of finance, should be weighted more than risk to entire finance sector from Eurozone regulation. Assume you just didn't see it.
The tariffs even if we fell back on WTO MFN are simply not that large. All the exporters from the UK to the EU in total, were they to pay tariffs at that level and then be reimbursed by the government, would cost the country less that paying the EU membership fees.
And they would be more than offset by the massive plunge in sterling predicted by the remain camp anyway.....
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024
Skilfully changed from your original point.
Was it?! How so?
I wish I could take the use of "skilfully" as a compliment, but I don't think it was!
Yes, your original point was about the MENA migrants "roaming freely across the EU". You then changed that to talking about common residency rights and passports.
The latter is a consequence of EU membership; the former was down to a mixture of events in the Middle East combined with the leadership of one member indulging in an emotional spasm.
His reasons are based on bollocks...I don't think anybody believes that if UK exited EU, that EU students wouldn't still be able to easily access the UK university system. Its worth too much money to us. Loads of Norwegian, Swiss etc students at UK unis.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
The trouble with those remain people is they haven't offered us a plan. What would Britain look like if we remain?
It's utter cant anyway, it it just the next iteration of being "undecided". Now they fall back on being "decided but open to reason". Its bullshit, its the reaction of party loyalist following the beat of their leaders drum, but not wanting to look dogmatic. If Cameron fell under a bus tomorrow and Patterson was elected leader next week there would be a deafening screech of handbrakes and all of a sudden they would be persuaded by the arguments of leave after all.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
You can't really express it as percentages.
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
100% access to the EU single market isn't for me the be all and end all.
I have said on here before that Matt Taibbi's articles on the crash were required reading for anyone who wanted to understand the biggest theft in history.
"Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room."
That article is outstanding. I would recommend all to read it. I particularly like Trump's tactic of taking a stat that is hurting his opponent and inflating it five or ten fold. Do they let the lie stand - or fight the point that hurts them, saying "actually I'm not screwing you over by 5x - its only x..."
It would be like Leave saying that the UK's cost of EU membership is equal to a new hospital every day - rather than just every week.... How would Remain fight that?
Mr. Indigo, not sure when it's happening, but Hungary's holding a referendum on not accepting the quotas voted through by QMV.
I believe we told them to get stuffed as well.
Strange we didn't tell them to get stuffed on all sorts of other things that supposedly mattered... mind you we were not about to hold a referendum then.
Politicians love the EU because it gives them someone to blame when they want to pass a policy but know the voters are going to hate it "We tried our best, we went into battle for Britain, but you know how it is in the EU, those bastards beat us again... snigger"
I always like to assume good faith, but what I sometimes find frustrating (and may cause others to assume bad faith) is when people do not answer questions. For example, I asked why Euro-clearing and financial passport, despite being tiny fraction of finance, should be weighted more than risk to entire finance sector from Eurozone regulation. Assume you just didn't see it.
Sorry, I didn't notice that question.
Maybe they shouldn't be given too much weight, but the argument is that the fact that London is the centre for clearing is part of the overall package. Similarly for the financial passport, it's one reason for foreign banks to set up here, and that feeds into the overall attractiveness of London.
I don't claim to be qualified to judge the importance of those particular points, but the City as a whole seems agreed that they are important.
Again, though, I come back to my main point: these issues should all have been examined in depth over the last three or four years. It's no good just saying 'Oh well, I expect it will turn out all right'. At least it's not for me: it seems just too risky.
Thats ok! I did assume you just missed it.
Problem is that we couldn't properly assess balance of risk four years ago because renegotiation and banking union was still in process. Me myself only turned against EU with Cameron's renegotiation when he not only submitted to financial rulebook, but also allowed it to cover all the non-banking part of the City, which is heart of UK economy. That is clearly much, much greater risk than losing something as small as Euroclearing.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.
Comments
If Farage was serious he could work with the big hitters in Vote Leave. But he'd rather this be about him than actually win the vote. Win the vote and he is redundant, lose it and continue to grumble for years to come. So why not sabotage it with this divisiveness?
"Don't vote for them as they have mental illness"
It's all "remain" have..
"Jihadi Brexitites"
" The Real Continuity Leave"
Boak.
You did support me when I picked him up on that, I suppose?
You complain about a mote in others eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
Meanwhile Cameron deal that you say "helps a bit" hands over entire finance sector, including for the first time non-banks, to Franco-German regulation. So what do you think we should risk? The entire finance sector or the two slithers you mention??
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election
"EUracism..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBH3LohMQo
What are the pros of having unelected unsackable people having power over us?
That's me told..
For a start, I acknowledge a lot of the arguments for leaving, both the EEA and Full Monty options have advantages, as I've said many times.
As regards risks, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say there were no risks in staying in. Indeed, I have repeatedly said there are. What I said was that I didn't think the risks of staying in were in any way comparable to those of leaving. This is hardly controversial, is it? After all, there is no Brexit plan. So we don't know what we'd be leaving into. Obviously that's higher risk.
http://news.sky.com/story/1649104/uk-politicians-want-to-stop-redskins-london-game
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur".
Probably the same for budgets.
The idea of a 'plan' is a false notion, to my mind.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
I did know the answer - which was why I asked the question. IMO, the AfD are the most popular opposition party in Germany at the moment, if only just.
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
By your logic the government shouldn't change anything ever - no matter even it is as awful as the EU.
Personally I think the former are far less risky than the latter.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/26/buzzfeed-offer-free-beer-to-muslim-issues-reporter/
Personally I agree with you on this, that control over migration is the most powerful argument for leaving the EU/EEA.
And Khan has the temerity to suggest that Goldsmith is the one playing divisive politics.
I suspect even a guarantee of the streets being paved with gold the day after Brexit wouldn't shift Richard's view. He is a true believer.
'Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.'
Remain or Leave it's a risk.
If we leave it may well be a bumpy road for a couple of years which is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things
Trump 45
Rubio 25
Cruz 10
Kasich 8
Carson 5
Trump 52
Rubio 38
Trump 46
Hillary 44
Hillary 45
Rubio 43
Trump 42
Hillary 41
Bloomberg 10
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_FL_22516.pdf
As you can see before the debate Florida was one of the best states for Trump, both in the primary and the GE comparison with Rubio.
It confirms that Cruz had already collapsed towards Trump outside of Texas before the debate, and Trump was on his way to 50+, in my opinion the debate stopped temporarily Trump's momentum but if he remains in the 40's on S.Tuesday his momentum will restart, and it's a very short way from 45 to 51.
The last hope for Rubio is that Trump wins Texas forcing Cruz out (although he is already practically out, his voters are going to Trump), and for Fox News to steamroll Trump on the last debate on March 3rd.
Though I suspect that if Trump gets a clean sweep of all S.Tuesday states that he will declare the contest over and refuse to go on the FOX debate, sighting that it's over and pointless.
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/index_en.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/26/bbc-bosses-cover-tracks-savile-2012-andy-kershaw
I wish I could take the use of "skilfully" as a compliment, but I don't think it was!
Sorry to keep repeating myself, but since I keep being unfairly accused of not being open to the arguments, a grown-up exploration of what a non-EEA option might realistically look like is exactly what I've been seeking for the last four years. This is not easy stuff, and my (admittedly non-expert) conclusion is that there is no realistic prospect of getting a deal which is both sufficiently attractive on Single Market trade and gives us control over migration. Obviously I might be wrong about that, and the last four years when the Leave side might have done the work to address that argument have been wasted. Even more important, they don't even seem interested in the argument. Hence I'm pushed, reluctantly but firmly, to stay in the Remain camp.
The risks of remain carry the bigger potential losses; the risks of leave are containable.
Latest GOP polls. Massachusetts Trump +21, Michigan Trump +24, Florida Trump +20, Virginia Trump +14, Georgia Trump +26, Texas Cruz+15.
The same is probably true on the full factfind nonsense. Much of that nonsense is as much because of the enthusiasm of UK regulators as EU regulators.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/647528/New-Zealand-Winston-Peters-Brexit-heal-rift-Commonwealth-free-trade
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
One thing I would say is initially I had the same concerns, as one of my businesses sells worldwide, including a significant amount in the EU. However, there is now plenty of software that automates all of it and actually hasn't been too bad for my own business.
It was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and missing the nut but hitting a bystander instead.
Anyway, I'm off [again].
Maybe they shouldn't be given too much weight, but the argument is that the fact that London is the centre for clearing is part of the overall package. Similarly for the financial passport, it's one reason for foreign banks to set up here, and that feeds into the overall attractiveness of London.
I don't claim to be qualified to judge the importance of those particular points, but the City as a whole seems agreed that they are important.
Again, though, I come back to my main point: these issues should all have been examined in depth over the last three or four years. It's no good just saying 'Oh well, I expect it will turn out all right'. At least it's not for me: it seems just too risky.
The latter is a consequence of EU membership; the former was down to a mixture of events in the Middle East combined with the leadership of one member indulging in an emotional spasm.
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
It would be like Leave saying that the UK's cost of EU membership is equal to a new hospital every day - rather than just every week.... How would Remain fight that?
Strange we didn't tell them to get stuffed on all sorts of other things that supposedly mattered... mind you we were not about to hold a referendum then.
Politicians love the EU because it gives them someone to blame when they want to pass a policy but know the voters are going to hate it "We tried our best, we went into battle for Britain, but you know how it is in the EU, those bastards beat us again... snigger"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12174825/Brothers-jailed-after-mocking-judge-who-let-them-off.html
Problem is that we couldn't properly assess balance of risk four years ago because renegotiation and banking union was still in process. Me myself only turned against EU with Cameron's renegotiation when he not only submitted to financial rulebook, but also allowed it to cover all the non-banking part of the City, which is heart of UK economy. That is clearly much, much greater risk than losing something as small as Euroclearing.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.