Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain.
That's the big problem for me. Remain haven't spelled out what our country would look like if we remain. When you ask them about immigration, ever closer union, the safety of our financial services industry, or the democratic deficit all you get is platitudes that are sometimes contradictory.
Assuming, and it’s a very big assumption, I know, that the current Syrian cease-fire develops into some sort of peace in the areas unaffected by IS or Al Nusrah. is not the current flow of refugees from Syria likely to slow down or even be reversed?
In terms of people arriving in Greece / Italy trying to get to Northern Europe, No...as a huge percentage aren't Syrian.
And those that are Syrian. They aren't going back...have you seen what Syria looks like now. Years of fighting means most don't have a home to go back to. Few have returned to Iraq over the years, why would you. Especially with nice Mrs Merkel promises.
Any time you leave something (job, partner, country) there is a "push" element and a "pull" one.
In my experience, any decision motivated only or largely by the "push" factor can lead to the wrong decision. Once you've left all the factors pushing you to leave have gone. So there needs to be more. You need to have some idea of what the answer to the "then what?" question is.
The committed Leavers are very good on the "push" aspect but hopeless, so far, on the "pull" side, not least because they're torn between those wanting to control immigration and those who still want the trading access and don't care that much about the immigration side. (I'm referring more to the vaguely official campaigns rather than some PB'ers on here who have set out their clear views). This will I think undermine Leave's chance of success.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain. They are deliberately confusing "Remain" with the status quo. Also the government has not helped with the negotiation charade and over-selling the "deal".
Both sides' ambiguity (some might call it dishonesty but I think it better to work on the basis that there are honourable reasons for being on either side of what is a difficult question with no easy answers) will bite them on the a*se in due course. How and when will depend on who wins.
But I continue to think it will be Remain - and probably by a reasonable margin.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
There's a lot of fun in Irish history - we lived in and around Galway from the 1170s through to the 1920s, but were never really accepted as locals...
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
There certainly is. In our family we are piecing together as much as we can, helped by the fact that no-one ever threw anything away.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
Christ on a bike. Did the SNP "accept the will of the people", did you accept the "will of the people" when Thatcher used her landslide majority so effectively, would Mr Meeks "accept the will of the people" if they voted in UKIP majority, would you ? It's bullshit from people trying to close down the debate, and it's beneath you.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
There's a lot of fun in Irish history - we lived in and around Galway from the 1170s through to the 1920s, but were never really accepted as locals...
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
There certainly is. In our family we are piecing together as much as we can, helped by the fact that no-one ever threw anything away.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain.
That's the big problem for me. Remain haven't spelled out what our country would look like if we remain. When you ask them about immigration, ever closer union, the safety of our financial services industry, or the democratic deficit all you get is platitudes that are sometimes contradictory.
Remain are incoherent and they don't have a PLAN.
There are 85m people in the queue to join the EU.
Recent history shows that we can expect between 1% and 3% to turn up here.
What do Remain intend to do about that?
The expansion of the EU to incorporate more poor countries seems far more likely than the UK being unable to strike a set of trade deals.
I've entered my prediction as a LEAVE victory with a lead of over 5%. As a REMAINER I think I might even be being a touch optimistic for REMAIN on that prediction. My gut feeling is that LEAVE have this in the bag now and that people like me just have to accept it.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
Of course both sides will behave rationally. Probably, in the end, we'll end up with either the EEA option or something similar to it. In itself that would be fairly neutral economically, for the very good reason that it's not very different from what we have.
However, that doesn't mean that the outcome will be better than what we currently have, or that the transition won't be fraught with danger and cost. In particular, we wouldn't be negotiating with a single body, but with a quite difficult mixture of 27 other countries, each of which has its own priorities, plus the EU bureaucracy and the EU parliament, and possibly with the three EEA countries as well. Probably (although this is slightly unclear) we would need unanimity to agree a trade deal or EEA membership. Even with the best will in the world, that's a massively complicated negotiation, and the sheer volume of issues to be addressed is daunting. Two years is a very tight schedule, but the cliff-edge of the two-year deadline (requiring unanimity to extend) is another huge risk factor - it would only require one obscure EU country to cause major disruption.
Airily dismissing these risks is irresponsible IMO. It's not as though I'm saying this only now - I've been saying it for four years, as have many others. The Leave side have only themselves to blame for not having thought about this problem. It has reached the point where the possible advantages of leaving are almost irrelevant to the argument, since the fact that no work has been done and there's not even broad consensus on the destination means that there's no plausible mechanism for getting there without a completely unacceptable risk of major economic disruption.
I've entered my prediction as a LEAVE victory with a lead of over 5%. As a REMAINER I think I might even be being a touch optimistic for REMAIN on that prediction. My gut feeling is that LEAVE have this in the bag now and that people like me just have to accept it.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
There's a lot of fun in Irish history - we lived in and around Galway from the 1170s through to the 1920s, but were never really accepted as locals...
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
There certainly is. In our family we are piecing together as much as we can, helped by the fact that no-one ever threw anything away.
You should see our archives in London!
I will try and catch you for 5 minutes this evening, if you have a moment.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
Of course both sides will behave rationally. Probably, in the end, we'll end up with either the EEA option or something similar to it. In itself that would be fairly neutral economically, for the very good reason that it's not very different from what we have.
However, that doesn't mean that the outcome will be better than what we currently have, or that the transition won't be fraught with danger and cost. In particular, we wouldn't be negotiating with a single body, but with a quite difficult mixture of 27 other countries, each of which has its own priorities, plus the EU bureaucracy and the EU parliament, and possibly with the three EEA countries as well. Probably (although this is slightly unclear) we would need unanimity to agree a trade deal or EEA membership. Even with the best will in the world, that's a massively complicated negotiation, and the sheer volume of issues to be addressed is daunting. Two years is a very tight schedule, but the cliff-edge of the two-year deadline (requiring unanimity to extend) is another huge risk factor - it would only require one obscure EU country to cause major disruption.
Airily dismissing these risks is irresponsible IMO. It's not as though I'm saying this only now - I've been saying it for four years, as have many others. The Leave side have only themselves to blame for not having thought about this problem. It has reached the point where the possible advantages of leaving are almost irrelevant to the argument, since the fact that no work has been done and there's not even broad consensus on the destination means that there's no plausible mechanism for getting there without a completely unacceptable risk of major economic disruption.
No, we will negotiate with a single counterparty representing the EU. The deal may need to be approved by 27 parliaments, but it will be a single team.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain.
That's the big problem for me. Remain haven't spelled out what our country would look like if we remain. When you ask them about immigration, ever closer union, the safety of our financial services industry, or the democratic deficit all you get is platitudes that are sometimes contradictory.
Remain are incoherent and they don't have a PLAN.
Remain can't have a plan because it's not up to the UK what the EU looks like in the future. That's dependent on the speed and extent of EZ integration and which countries join up in the future.
I should add that the UK's future, whether we stay or go, is not going to be some ghastly dystopia. Above all, I love this country and I have great faith that we'll do well.
I just think we'd do much, much better if we weren't tied to an under-performing economic bloc with grand political ambitions.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
There's a lot of fun in Irish history - we lived in and around Galway from the 1170s through to the 1920s, but were never really accepted as locals...
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
There certainly is. In our family we are piecing together as much as we can, helped by the fact that no-one ever threw anything away.
You should see our archives in London!
I will try and catch you for 5 minutes this evening, if you have a moment.
Sure, hope to. I'm just a gimp in the audience so I may get bored and sneak out early...
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Like all those dire warnings we were given if we didn't join the Euro?
No, we will negotiate with a single counterparty representing the EU. The deal may need to be approved by 27 parliaments, but it will be a single team.
True, but that's hardly encouraging. No-one will know whether the go-betweens (i.e. the EU negotiating team) will be able to commit the 27 governments (let alone parliaments) to any proposed deal.
In conclusion, Britain should leave the EU only if ready to exit also the Single Market as well, with a credible plan to re-configure its economy on the basis of some autarkic model that is almost impossible to imagine. No notion is more fanciful than the idea that British democratic sovereignty can be reclaimed through Brexit while Britain stays in the Single Market.
I've entered my prediction as a LEAVE victory with a lead of over 5%. As a REMAINER I think I might even be being a touch optimistic for REMAIN on that prediction. My gut feeling is that LEAVE have this in the bag now and that people like me just have to accept it.
Woah. That's quite a prediction.
I think the opposite: the only firming up I've seen over the last week is of the non-political middle-class professionals (not on here, where it's been the other way) reluctantly plumping for Remain.
Could it be we simply get depressed about the paucity of the arguments of our own side?
No, we will negotiate with a single counterparty representing the EU. The deal may need to be approved by 27 parliaments, but it will be a single team.
True, but that's hardly encouraging. No-one will know whether the go-betweens (i.e. the EU negotiating team) will be able to commit the 27 governments (let alone parliaments) to any proposed deal.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Yes, the main time I ever see anyone with any real enthusiasm for REMAIN is when I look into a mirror... and doing that too often is very unhealthy to say the least.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain. They are deliberately confusing "Remain" with the status quo. Also the government has not helped with the negotiation charade and over-selling the "deal".
But I continue to think it will be Remain - and probably by a reasonable margin.
That the EU will not stand still, that there will be further integration is a constant factor to be addressed equally by both Remain and Leave (whether EFTA EEA or non-bloc aligned Leave), in that integration in our neighbouring countries will affect us whether or not we are in the EU.
Everything Cameron has negotiated, whether it be the deal or the referendum lock, has been designed primarily to make possible the argument that the local UK position within the EU IS one of 'status quo' if we Remain, leaving others free to integrate further if they want (and the others seem quite happy to acknowledge a two-track EU which means the UK will no longer be a drag anchor on integration). That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable for Remain to make the argument that they represent a status quo position in terms of the UK's relationship, and make Leave do the running around to disprove that.
Yes, the main time I ever see anyone with any real enthusiasm for REMAIN is when I look into a mirror... and doing that too often is very unhealthy to say the least.
You don't need enthusiastic votes for Remain to win. As the Evening Standard poll showed, millions of eurosceptics who have no time for the EU and its institutions will reluctantly vote Remain on the day.
In conclusion, Britain should leave the EU only if ready to exit also the Single Market as well, with a credible plan to re-configure its economy on the basis of some autarkic model that is almost impossible to imagine. No notion is more fanciful than the idea that British democratic sovereignty can be reclaimed through Brexit while Britain stays in the Single Market.
In conclusion, Britain should leave the EU only if ready to exit also the Single Market as well, with a credible plan to re-configure its economy on the basis of some autarkic model that is almost impossible to imagine. No notion is more fanciful than the idea that British democratic sovereignty can be reclaimed through Brexit while Britain stays in the Single Market.
This would be the Varoufakis who was so europhile that he was prepared to condemn his country to 30+% unemployment and perpetual ruin, rather than accept the offered out with support from the IMF and the ECB ?
Forgive me for not seeing him as completely objective on the subject
God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence. You have conspired against our royal person, Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers Received the golden earnest of our death; Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter, His princes and his peers to servitude, His subjects to oppression and contempt And his whole kingdom into desolation.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Well, we've seen the movie as the Americans say. The sky was going to fall in if we didn't join the Euro; Saddam Hussein was 45 minutes away from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; heterosexual AIDS would sweep through the West; the Club of Rome warned us that the World would have run out of food by now.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
@TomChivers: @PCollinsTimes if I'm honest my main reason for voting Remain will be because it will annoy people who I enjoy seeing annoyed
It will probably cancel out on both sides. There will be people who vote Leave because they would vote against anything that a Conservative government proposed.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
Yes, and as I've said many times, I think voters in general will to a large extent discount them as well.
But not entirely. It's not Project Fear, it's Project Doubt that will win this comfortably for Remain.
When I look at the EU, and what is happening to it both economically and socially, I find the confidence the remainers have in this desperate enterprise difficult to fathom.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
It's not "airily dismissing"
It will be complex. But ultimately it will be alright. We are the world's 5th largest economy. We'll be fine.
Could it be we simply get depressed about the paucity of the arguments of our own side?
Don't know.
I think there is an element of that too. I don't feel fired up by anything at all that the REMAIN campaign are saying or doing. All my enthusiasm for the cause comes from my own pre-existing beliefs rather than anything that's coming from the campaign in the last several weeks. In all honesty, if I were going into this with no pre-existing opinions I think I'd be an undecided at the moment.
If you are feeling even a fraction as frustrated with your side's antics as I am with my side's antics then that's rather interesting and significant. Though, overall, I get the impression that more LEAVERS are happy with the LEAVE campaign than REMAINERS are happy with the REMAIN campaign.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
Yes, and as I've said many times, I think voters in general will to a large extent discount them as well.
But not entirely. It's not Project Fear, it's Project Doubt that will win this comfortably for Remain.
Thinking about it further, it's like claims that Ed Milliband becoming PM would have been a disaster. I wouldn't have liked Ed Milliband becoming PM, but clearly, life would have remained okay for most of us, had he done so.
You don't need enthusiastic votes for Remain to win. As the Evening Standard poll showed, millions of eurosceptics who have no time for the EU and its institutions will reluctantly vote Remain on the day.
Their votes will count exactly the same as yours.
If, and only if, they can be bothered to turn out. That is what I doubt most of all.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Well, we've seen the movie as the Americans say. The sky was going to fall in if we didn't join the Euro; Saddam Hussein was 45 minutes away from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; heterosexual AIDS would sweep through the West; the Club of Rome warned us that the World would have run out of food by now.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
The independent think tanks who've looked at Brexit dispassionately put the effect on GDP at -2.2% worst case (that's full independence, no deal and relying on WTO rules) to +1.6% with a good deal and single market access.
The former (worst case) would be annoying - just under a year's growth, at current rates - but hardly a disaster of biblical proportions, like it's made out to be.
I've entered my prediction as a LEAVE victory with a lead of over 5%. As a REMAINER I think I might even be being a touch optimistic for REMAIN on that prediction. My gut feeling is that LEAVE have this in the bag now and that people like me just have to accept it.
Well, bravo on your honesty Mr Whaley, although I have come, reluctantly to the opposite conclusion, I hope you are the more accurate of the two.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain. They are deliberately confusing "Remain" with the status quo. Also the government has not helped with the negotiation charade and over-selling the "deal".
But I continue to think it will be Remain - and probably by a reasonable margin.
That the EU will not stand still, that there will be further integration is a constant factor to be addressed equally by both Remain and Leave (whether EFTA EEA or non-bloc aligned Leave), in that integration in our neighbouring countries will affect us whether or not we are in the EU.
Everything Cameron has negotiated, whether it be the deal or the referendum lock, has been designed primarily to make possible the argument that the local UK position within the EU IS one of 'status quo' if we Remain, leaving others free to integrate further if they want (and the others seem quite happy to acknowledge a two-track EU which means the UK will no longer be a drag anchor on integration). That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable for Remain to make the argument that they represent a status quo position in terms of the UK's relationship, and make Leave do the running around to disprove that.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has negotiated does mean the status quo for the UK. Being a minority in an organisation where the majority integrates further and necessarily accrues more and more power over the minority is not the status quo. Our relative importance, influence, de facto and de jure position will inevitably decline if we stay in the EU and it and the Eurozone integrate further as they have stated they will.
Remain's case - at least as I understand it - is that the decline in our relative position and the consequences for us of further integration even in those areas where we have no opt-outs are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
Whether that is so only time can tell. But I dislike the way that some of those on the Remain side seek to pretend that our position will not decline - that we won't be in the relatively weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
It's not "airily dismissing"
It will be complex. But ultimately it will be alright. We are the world's 5th largest economy. We'll be fine.
In terms of the negotiations, all parties have much to lose and much to gain. That's probably why I'm not particularly worried. It is possible to have a win-win negotiation.
Yes, the main time I ever see anyone with any real enthusiasm for REMAIN is when I look into a mirror... and doing that too often is very unhealthy to say the least.
You don't need enthusiastic votes for Remain to win. As the Evening Standard poll showed, millions of eurosceptics who have no time for the EU and its institutions will reluctantly vote Remain on the day.
Their votes will count exactly the same as yours.
Aside from the level of bullshit flowing from HMG which does them no credit, and quite a lot of damage, I am increasingly relaxed about the whole thing as its plain the EU is going to federalise, and the UK is going to reject it. We will be out inside a decade, potentially 5 years, anyway. Ironic to think of Cameron burning his legacy and remaining political capital on something that won't amount to a hill of beans inside the decade, when he could have used it for something that actually matters, truly the heir to Blair.
@Charles - BTW, my wife and I went to the Egyptian exhibition at Two Temple Place yesterday - it was great to see those exhibits together in one place.
We also went to the Lee Miller exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, which is absolutely superb. I very strongly recommend it.
You don't need enthusiastic votes for Remain to win. As the Evening Standard poll showed, millions of eurosceptics who have no time for the EU and its institutions will reluctantly vote Remain on the day.
Their votes will count exactly the same as yours.
If, and only if, they can be bothered to turn out. That is what I doubt most of all.
Indeed - I suspect turnout will be low - may have a tickle on sub 50% - will be on a par with council elections - only the die hard voters.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Well, we've seen the movie as the Americans say. The sky was going to fall in if we didn't join the Euro; Saddam Hussein was 45 minutes away from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; heterosexual AIDS would sweep through the West; the Club of Rome warned us that the World would have run out of food by now.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
The independent think tanks who've looked at Brexit dispassionately put the effect on GDP at -2.2% worst case (that's full independence, no deal and relying on WTO rules) to +1.6% with a good deal and single market access.
The former (worst case) would be annoying - just under a year's growth, at current rates - but hardly a disaster of biblical proportions, like it's made out to be.
Yes, I remember a similar estimate in the Economist (-2$ to 1%), which is about the most Europhile magazine out there.
Given that those are the potential economic risks and benefits we're talking about, it's pretty safe to conclude that nothing very much would change - in economic terms - whether we're inside or outside of the EU. The UK would remain a rich country.
While the Metropolitan Police were investigating phone-hacking practices at the News of the World, Murdoch’s team had sifted through millions of emails on his company computers.
During the course of this, emails from Deng were uncovered that suggested a close relationship with a tennis coach in Carmel, another with the founder of Google, Eric Schmidt — and a third with Tony Blair. It was left to one of Murdoch’s sons to show the messages to the ageing tycoon.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
Yes, and as I've said many times, I think voters in general will to a large extent discount them as well.
But not entirely. It's not Project Fear, it's Project Doubt that will win this comfortably for Remain.
Thinking about it further, it's like claims that Ed Milliband becoming PM would have been a disaster. I wouldn't have liked Ed Milliband becoming PM, but clearly, life would have remained okay for most of us, had he done so.
The same is true of staying in the EU, of course. In fact, we are doing rather well despite or because of (take your pick) being in the EU, so the status quo is better than just OK.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
We are negotiating from where we are, which is inside the EU. No EU member state has given up unfettered freedom of movement in order to secure a trade agreement with a third party.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
In reality we'd join part of multinational agreements. Either we'd join NAFTA or become a third party to TTIP.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
Now I'm REALLY scared. Next to a million refugees this summer, that empty threat by the favourite apparatchik of a dead duck outgoing President is a real frightener
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Mr Nabavi: you do seem a bit of an Eeyore at times, I must say.
This quote by Sir Nicholas Winton has much to commend it:-
"Anything that is not actually impossible can be done, if one really sets one's mind to do it and is determined that it shall be done."
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
He said that 2-3 weeks ago have you only just noticed. It was the same day that it was denied by just about all the candidates running for president, so excuse us if we dont get all that excited about it.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
It's not "airily dismissing"
It will be complex. But ultimately it will be alright. We are the world's 5th largest economy. We'll be fine.
In terms of the negotiations, all parties have much to lose and much to gain. That's probably why I'm not particularly worried. It is possible to have a win-win negotiation.
If dealing with rational self-interested parties, yes. But this would be a deal with 27 democracies, each with their own domestic politics and electoral timetables, some with opposition parties in charge of one of the branches of government with a veto, and nearly all with some very narked off voters. The elites may not have the freedom to sign off on the win-win.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Mr Nabavi: you do seem a bit of an Eeyore at times, I must say.
This quote by Sir Nicholas Winton has much to commend it:-
"Anything that is not actually impossible can be done, if one really sets one's mind to do it and is determined that it shall be done."
If any body has proved that, it is the EU. When it is politically expedient, fundamental principles, laws and treaties just go out of the window. And voters know this.
@Charles - BTW, my wife and I went to the Egyptian exhibition at Two Temple Place yesterday - it was great to see those exhibits together in one place.
We also went to the Lee Miller exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, which is absolutely superb. I very strongly recommend it.
Glad you liked it. We haven't announced it yet publicly, but Tony Penrose is collaborating on our 2017 exhibition - my wife wrote her thesis on Lee Miller.`
"Politicians have previously been embarrassed by revelations that their personal Twitter accounts follow porn sites, escort services and even brothels. Sadiq Khan’s ‘following’ list is slightly different. Labour’s mayoral candidate keeps up to date with the musings of Majid Freeman, a ‘charity worker’ from Leicester who posts links to ISIS propaganda videos and films presenting Daesh as a reasonable response to the West. Majid has also promoted material on Twitter praising Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Perhaps Sadiq was hacked?
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
"Politicians have previously been embarrassed by revelations that their personal Twitter accounts follow porn sites, escort services and even brothels. Sadiq Khan’s ‘following’ list is slightly different. Labour’s mayoral candidate keeps up to date with the musings of Majid Freeman, a ‘charity worker’ from Leicester who posts links to ISIS propaganda videos and films presenting Daesh as a reasonable response to the West. Majid has also promoted material on Twitter praising Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Perhaps Sadiq was hacked?
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
@Charles - BTW, my wife and I went to the Egyptian exhibition at Two Temple Place yesterday - it was great to see those exhibits together in one place.
We also went to the Lee Miller exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, which is absolutely superb. I very strongly recommend it.
Glad you liked it. We haven't announced it yet publicly, but Tony Penrose is collaborating on our 2017 exhibition - my wife wrote her thesis on Lee Miller.`
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
He said that 2-3 weeks ago have you only just noticed. It was the same day that it was denied by just about all the candidates running for president, so excuse us if we dont get all that excited about it.
The US will deal with the world as it is, including a Britain outside the EU. Just as they dealt with Britain when it was outside the EU before.
This does not mean that we will be able to demand let alone get whatever we want from the US. But just because it suits the US for Britain to be in the EU (even though the US itself would never in a million years submit themselves to a similar organisation) is not a good enough reason for Britain to stay in. We should be in because it suits us not the US or the Chinese or anyone else.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
That's just garbage.
America aggressively pursues America's interests.
Their first choice is the UK in the EU. But failing that they will do a deal with an independent UK. And it won't be Obama making the decision anyway.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
We are negotiating from where we are, which is inside the EU. No EU member state has given up unfettered freedom of movement in order to secure a trade agreement with a third party.
But once Article 50 has been invoked the status quo is not an option.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
Come the day, if the UK votes Leave, there'll be a trade treaty with the USA.
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
An article that could be entitled why HRC will lose to Trump. Those on the patriotic non-interventionist left will simply vote for Trump, third party or not vote at all, rather than vote for HRC. A lot of single issue voters on this.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Mr Nabavi: you do seem a bit of an Eeyore at times, I must say.
This quote by Sir Nicholas Winton has much to commend it:-
"Anything that is not actually impossible can be done, if one really sets one's mind to do it and is determined that it shall be done."
'not actually impossible' is a nice caveat.
If both sides to a position determine that the culmination of their own particular view is 'not actually impossible' and 'really set their mind to it' where does that lead us?
Your analogy falls down since it applies to a one sided problem where there are obstacles but passive or bureaucratic ones, ones that can be bypassed.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
I thought TTIP also required the approval of the parliament. Wouldn't any agreement with us have the same requirement?
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
Interesting. Presumably because the drafting of the Article 50 process pre-dates the adoption of QMV for those issues?
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
We are negotiating from where we are, which is inside the EU. No EU member state has given up unfettered freedom of movement in order to secure a trade agreement with a third party.
But once Article 50 has been invoked the status quo is not an option.
In practical terms, it is. It's just we will not be members of the EU. If you are going to ask EU member states to give something as fundamental as freedom of movement to the UK up for their citizens you are going to need something very attractive to give back. What will that be?
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
I still haven't have a coherent explanation on why we need the single market rather than just WTO MFN, we seem to manage to trade with the US quite happily on those terms. So the answer ultimately is we tell the EU that its not open to negotiation, and if they want to exclude us from the single market, so be it, we will trade on WTO MFN terms, which incidentally will cost the country less in tariffs than we pay in EU membership contributions, so would be an economic benefit.
That the EU will not stand still, that there will be further integration is a constant factor to be addressed equally by both Remain and Leave (whether EFTA EEA or non-bloc aligned Leave), in that integration in our neighbouring countries will affect us whether or not we are in the EU.
Everything Cameron has negotiated, whether it be the deal or the referendum lock, has been designed primarily to make possible the argument that the local UK position within the EU IS one of 'status quo' if we Remain, leaving others free to integrate further if they want (and the others seem quite happy to acknowledge a two-track EU which means the UK will no longer be a drag anchor on integration). That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable for Remain to make the argument that they represent a status quo position in terms of the UK's relationship, and make Leave do the running around to disprove that.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has negotiated does mean the status quo for the UK. Being a minority in an organisation where the majority integrates further and necessarily accrues more and more power over the minority is not the status quo. Our relative importance, influence, de facto and de jure position will inevitably decline if we stay in the EU and it and the Eurozone integrate further as they have stated they will.
Remain's case - at least as I understand it - is that the decline in our relative position and the consequences for us of further integration even in those areas where we have no opt-outs are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
Whether that is so only time can tell. But I dislike the way that some of those on the Remain side seek to pretend that our position will not decline - that we won't be in the relatively weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
We are a minor player compared with the larger EU/EZ. Whether we remain or leave that will always be the case. We can be part of EFTA/EEA and still be much influenced and affected by the EU/EZ. These are the facts of life. EU China India USA Brazil and their associated trading groups... they will all affect us. But in the EEA we just go along with what the EU decide anyway. It is a pretence to say leaving will make any difference.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
Interesting. Presumably because the drafting of the Article 50 process pre-dates the adoption of QMV for those issues?
I think they were both part of the same Lisbon Treaty. But I think the idea was that the exit of a member state and the terms if such an exit was serious enough to demand unanimity whilst trade deals are a power surrendered to the EU by the member states so are decided by QMV.
That the EU will not stand still, that there will be further integration is a constant factor to be addressed equally by both Remain and Leave, in that integration in our neighbouring countries will affect us whether or not we are in the EU.
Everything Cameron has negotiated, whether it be the deal or the referendum lock, has been designed primarily to make possible the argument that the local UK position within the EU IS one of 'status quo' if we Remain. That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable for Remain to make the argument that they represent a status quo position in terms of the UK's relationship, and make Leave do the running around to disprove that.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has negotiated does mean the status quo for the UK. Being a minority in an organisation where the majority integrates further and necessarily accrues more and more power over the minority is not the status quo. Our relative importance, influence, de facto and de jure position will inevitably decline if we stay in the EU and it and the Eurozone integrate further as they have stated they will.
Remain's case - at least as I understand it - is that the decline in our relative position and the consequences for us of further integration even in those areas where we have no opt-outs are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
Whether that is so only time can tell. But I dislike the way that some of those on the Remain side seek to pretend that our position will not decline - that we won't be in the relatively weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.
But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.
It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
I thought TTIP also required the approval of the parliament. Wouldn't any agreement with us have the same requirement?
Yes I believe so. I was just referring to the Council decision which for trade deals is QMV.
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Here is an interesting anomaly I was looking at last night.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
Interesting. Presumably because the drafting of the Article 50 process pre-dates the adoption of QMV for those issues?
I think they were both part of the same Lisbon Treaty. But I think the idea was that the exit of a member state and the terms if such an exit was serious enough to demand unanimity whilst trade deals are a power surrendered to the EU by the member states so are decided by QMV.
What does repealing the European Communities Act (1972) count as
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
I follow all kinds of people on Twitter to see what they're saying. It's the modern equivalent of reading a paper you may not necessarily agree with.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
I still haven't have a coherent explanation on why we need the single market rather than just WTO MFN, we seem to manage to trade with the US quite happily on those terms. So the answer ultimately is we tell the EU that its not open to negotiation, and if they want to exclude us from the single market, so be it, we will trade on WTO MFN terms, which incidentally will cost the country less in tariffs than we pay in EU membership contributions, so would be an economic benefit.
Trade deals contain far more than just rules on what tariffs are acceptable for passing goods from one country to another. For example, rules on ownership of local businesses, cross-border tax, provision of services by entities based abroad, etc.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
No, we won't.
The EU agrees a common negotiating position. Whatever they do behind the scenes to come up with that common position is no concern of ours.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
I still haven't have a coherent explanation on why we need the single market rather than just WTO MFN, we seem to manage to trade with the US quite happily on those terms. So the answer ultimately is we tell the EU that its not open to negotiation, and if they want to exclude us from the single market, so be it, we will trade on WTO MFN terms, which incidentally will cost the country less in tariffs than we pay in EU membership contributions, so would be an economic benefit.
We gave up trying to open an office in the US because it was too time-consuming, expensive and risky. We could open one up tomorrow anywhere in the EU as easily as we could in the UK. I don't want to lose that flexibility.
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
I follow all kinds of people on Twitter to see what they're saying. It's the modern equivalent of reading a paper you may not necessarily agree with.
Bit different sitting in Starbucks reading the Morning Star or the Daily Mail, than with the latest copy of Dabiq.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
We are negotiating from where we are, which is inside the EU. No EU member state has given up unfettered freedom of movement in order to secure a trade agreement with a third party.
But once Article 50 has been invoked the status quo is not an option.
In practical terms, it is. It's just we will not be members of the EU. If you are going to ask EU member states to give something as fundamental as freedom of movement to the UK up for their citizens you are going to need something very attractive to give back. What will that be?
Trade deals contain far more than just rules on what tariffs are acceptable for passing goods from one country to another. For example, rules on ownership of local businesses, cross-border tax, provision of services by entities based abroad, etc.
Which is true; but how important are all the extras compared to the direct agreements on tariffs etc., in welfare terms?
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
Indeed.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
Reminiscent of Joe Kennedy's pathetic opinions in 1940.
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
I follow all kinds of people on Twitter to see what they're saying. It's the modern equivalent of reading a paper you may not necessarily agree with.
Bit different sitting in Starbucks reading the Morning Star or the Daily Mail, than with the latest copy of Dabiq.
Good effort though, keep trying to spin.
And furthermore, if you're in the public eye then following someone gives them a certain amount of credence. If you want to 'see what they're saying' then create an anonymous account for the purpose of following people you don't want to endorse.
Trade deals contain far more than just rules on what tariffs are acceptable for passing goods from one country to another. For example, rules on ownership of local businesses, cross-border tax, provision of services by entities based abroad, etc.
Which is true; but how important are all the extras compared to the direct agreements on tariffs etc., in welfare terms?
Quite, I think.
Certainly, as a partner in a small fund management firm, the loss of the Single European Passport for financial services regulation would be a pretty severe blow to our firm.
Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
We invite in alternative suppliers from the 190 nations outside the EU?
We promote an increase in domestic production?
We approach BMW etc and suggest that they manufacture here to circumvent any barrier?
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
I follow all kinds of people on Twitter to see what they're saying. It's the modern equivalent of reading a paper you may not necessarily agree with.
Bit different sitting in Starbucks reading the Morning Star or the Daily Mail, than with the latest copy of Dabiq.
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
How would Oscar Wilde have put it ?
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
I follow all kinds of people on Twitter to see what they're saying. It's the modern equivalent of reading a paper you may not necessarily agree with.
The key issue here is not so much whom you choose to follow or read or sit next to or appear at rallies and meetings with but whether you are doing so because you are trying to get information about them (reading a newspaper, to use your analogy), because you wish to challenge them or because you agree with them.
You have always ignored this last point, I think. It is relevant to ask Khan whether he has ever challenged these people and their views on Twitter or in some other forum and, if so, to provide examples. Otherwise people might well assume that he is following them because he agrees with their views. And that is a relevant consideration when the person in question is seeking to become Mayor at a time of enhanced concern about terrorist activity from the sorts of people he is following.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has negotiated does mean the status quo for the UK. Being a minority in an organisation where the majority integrates further and necessarily accrues more and more power over the minority is not the status quo. Our relative importance, influence, de facto and de jure position will inevitably decline if we stay in the EU and it and the Eurozone integrate further as they have stated they will.
Remain's case - at least as I understand it - is that the decline in our relative position and the consequences for us of further integration even in those areas where we have no opt-outs are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
Whether that is so only time can tell. But I dislike the way that some of those on the Remain side seek to pretend that our position will not decline - that we won't be in the relatively weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.
But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.
It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Certainly, as a partner in a small fund management firm, the loss of the Single European Passport for financial services regulation would be a pretty severe blow to our firm.
For trade in goods, the amount of paperwork is as important as tariffs. In some industries more important. Having stuff stuck in customs for weeks on end because someone made a minor mistake in a complicated form is a major headache, and unthinkable in (for example) the car industry, where the supply-chain is now so tightly integrated.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
We are negotiating from where we are, which is inside the EU. No EU member state has given up unfettered freedom of movement in order to secure a trade agreement with a third party.
But once Article 50 has been invoked the status quo is not an option.
In practical terms, it is. It's just we will not be members of the EU. If you are going to ask EU member states to give something as fundamental as freedom of movement to the UK up for their citizens you are going to need something very attractive to give back. What will that be?
Access to the UK market.
Give us what we want or we will make your goods more expensive for British people to buy. Not sure that would work, especially for those that have no significant presence in the UK market.
Comments
That's the big problem for me. Remain haven't spelled out what our country would look like if we remain. When you ask them about immigration, ever closer union, the safety of our financial services industry, or the democratic deficit all you get is platitudes that are sometimes contradictory.
Remain are incoherent and they don't have a PLAN.
And those that are Syrian. They aren't going back...have you seen what Syria looks like now. Years of fighting means most don't have a home to go back to. Few have returned to Iraq over the years, why would you. Especially with nice Mrs Merkel promises.
Recent history shows that we can expect between 1% and 3% to turn up here.
What do Remain intend to do about that?
The expansion of the EU to incorporate more poor countries seems far more likely than the UK being unable to strike a set of trade deals.
However, that doesn't mean that the outcome will be better than what we currently have, or that the transition won't be fraught with danger and cost. In particular, we wouldn't be negotiating with a single body, but with a quite difficult mixture of 27 other countries, each of which has its own priorities, plus the EU bureaucracy and the EU parliament, and possibly with the three EEA countries as well. Probably (although this is slightly unclear) we would need unanimity to agree a trade deal or EEA membership. Even with the best will in the world, that's a massively complicated negotiation, and the sheer volume of issues to be addressed is daunting. Two years is a very tight schedule, but the cliff-edge of the two-year deadline (requiring unanimity to extend) is another huge risk factor - it would only require one obscure EU country to cause major disruption.
Airily dismissing these risks is irresponsible IMO. It's not as though I'm saying this only now - I've been saying it for four years, as have many others. The Leave side have only themselves to blame for not having thought about this problem. It has reached the point where the possible advantages of leaving are almost irrelevant to the argument, since the fact that no work has been done and there's not even broad consensus on the destination means that there's no plausible mechanism for getting there without a completely unacceptable risk of major economic disruption.
http://www.cityam.com/235556/the-city-has-nothing-to-fear-and-much-to-gain-from-brexit
and informed people who think the renegotiation is non-binding bullshit
http://www.cityam.com/234652/david-camerons-eu-deal-is-in-legal-terms-not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-on
Your argument is the sort of sanctimonious crap we get from environmentalists trying to close down debate on their favourite topic.
I should add that the UK's future, whether we stay or go, is not going to be some ghastly dystopia. Above all, I love this country and I have great faith that we'll do well.
I just think we'd do much, much better if we weren't tied to an under-performing economic bloc with grand political ambitions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv7UoK8oJY
In conclusion, Britain should leave the EU only if ready to exit also the Single Market as well, with a credible plan to re-configure its economy on the basis of some autarkic model that is almost impossible to imagine. No notion is more fanciful than the idea that British democratic sovereignty can be reclaimed through Brexit while Britain stays in the Single Market.
http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2016/02/28/is-greece-not-another-compelling-reason-to-vote-for-brexit-on-23rd-june/
I think the opposite: the only firming up I've seen over the last week is of the non-political middle-class professionals (not on here, where it's been the other way) reluctantly plumping for Remain.
Could it be we simply get depressed about the paucity of the arguments of our own side?
Don't know.
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Everything Cameron has negotiated, whether it be the deal or the referendum lock, has been designed primarily to make possible the argument that the local UK position within the EU IS one of 'status quo' if we Remain, leaving others free to integrate further if they want (and the others seem quite happy to acknowledge a two-track EU which means the UK will no longer be a drag anchor on integration). That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable for Remain to make the argument that they represent a status quo position in terms of the UK's relationship, and make Leave do the running around to disprove that.
Their votes will count exactly the same as yours.
Forgive me for not seeing him as completely objective on the subject
God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence.
You have conspired against our royal person,
Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death;
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt
And his whole kingdom into desolation.
Political partisans take the view that no case can be sufficiently overstated, and those of us who disagree with them discount their views accordingly.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
But not entirely. It's not Project Fear, it's Project Doubt that will win this comfortably for Remain.
It will be complex. But ultimately it will be alright. We are the world's 5th largest economy. We'll be fine.
If you are feeling even a fraction as frustrated with your side's antics as I am with my side's antics then that's rather interesting and significant. Though, overall, I get the impression that more LEAVERS are happy with the LEAVE campaign than REMAINERS are happy with the REMAIN campaign.
Their votes will count exactly the same as yours.
If, and only if, they can be bothered to turn out. That is what I doubt most of all.
The former (worst case) would be annoying - just under a year's growth, at current rates - but hardly a disaster of biblical proportions, like it's made out to be.
Remain's case - at least as I understand it - is that the decline in our relative position and the consequences for us of further integration even in those areas where we have no opt-outs are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
Whether that is so only time can tell. But I dislike the way that some of those on the Remain side seek to pretend that our position will not decline - that we won't be in the relatively weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
We also went to the Lee Miller exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, which is absolutely superb. I very strongly recommend it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35685981
You can guess the rest.
Indeed - I suspect turnout will be low - may have a tickle on sub 50% - will be on a par with council elections - only the die hard voters.
''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal''
(Telegraph report amongst others)
This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it.
''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU''
''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners.
President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11962277/Major-blow-for-Brexit-campaign-as-US-rules-out-UK-only-trade-deal.html
Given that those are the potential economic risks and benefits we're talking about, it's pretty safe to conclude that nothing very much would change - in economic terms - whether we're inside or outside of the EU. The UK would remain a rich country.
During the course of this, emails from Deng were uncovered that suggested a close relationship with a tennis coach in Carmel, another with the founder of Google, Eric Schmidt — and a third with Tony Blair. It was left to one of Murdoch’s sons to show the messages to the ageing tycoon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468530/Blair-s-secret-night-Rupert-Murdoch-s-infatuated-wife-led-divorce-media-mogul-it.html
@nsoamesmp: Labour have apptd former Greek finance Minister to advise them Reassuringly barking . Completely Tonto #finis
This quote by Sir Nicholas Winton has much to commend it:-
"Anything that is not actually impossible can be done, if one really sets one's mind to do it and is determined that it shall be done."
http://order-order.com/2016/02/29/sadiqs-web-of-terror-khan-follows-isis-supporter-on-twitter/
"Politicians have previously been embarrassed by revelations that their personal Twitter accounts follow porn sites, escort services and even brothels. Sadiq Khan’s ‘following’ list is slightly different. Labour’s mayoral candidate keeps up to date with the musings of Majid Freeman, a ‘charity worker’ from Leicester who posts links to ISIS propaganda videos and films presenting Daesh as a reasonable response to the West. Majid has also promoted material on Twitter praising Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Perhaps Sadiq was hacked?
Unfortunately Khan also follows Hamja Ahsan, a ‘justice campaigner’ who spends all his time on Twitter campaigning on behalf of his brother Talha, who pleaded guilty to providing material support for insurgents in Afghanistan. Talha faced trial alongside Khan’s childhood friend Babar Ahmad, who also pleaded guilty. Khan admits he was close to these dodgy people back in the day, he says that is all history now. The evidence of his Twitter account is that he still likes to keep up-to-date with them"
The reporter doesn't seen very keen on them
This does not mean that we will be able to demand let alone get whatever we want from the US. But just because it suits the US for Britain to be in the EU (even though the US itself would never in a million years submit themselves to a similar organisation) is not a good enough reason for Britain to stay in. We should be in because it suits us not the US or the Chinese or anyone else.
America aggressively pursues America's interests.
Their first choice is the UK in the EU. But failing that they will do a deal with an independent UK. And it won't be Obama making the decision anyway.
"To follow one jihadi nutter may be regarded as a misfortune; to follow two looks like carelessness"
An article that could be entitled why HRC will lose to Trump. Those on the patriotic non-interventionist left will simply vote for Trump, third party or not vote at all, rather than vote for HRC. A lot of single issue voters on this.
If we negotiate a deal under article 50 for future trade with the EU then it has to be approved by every other EU country.
However if we just leave without going through the article 50 process and then negotiate a new trade deal with the EU it is covered by QMV so we don't need the agreement of every country.
I am not in any way advocating this. Just pointing out how strange and disjointed some of the EU rules are.
If both sides to a position determine that the culmination of their own particular view is 'not actually impossible' and 'really set their mind to it' where does that lead us?
Your analogy falls down since it applies to a one sided problem where there are obstacles but passive or bureaucratic ones, ones that can be bypassed.
But in the EEA we just go along with what the EU decide anyway. It is a pretence to say leaving will make any difference.
But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.
It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc
The EU agrees a common negotiating position. Whatever they do behind the scenes to come up with that common position is no concern of ours.
Good effort though, keep trying to spin.
Which is true; but how important are all the extras compared to the direct agreements on tariffs etc., in welfare terms?
Certainly, as a partner in a small fund management firm, the loss of the Single European Passport for financial services regulation would be a pretty severe blow to our firm.
We promote an increase in domestic production?
We approach BMW etc and suggest that they manufacture here to circumvent any barrier?
You have always ignored this last point, I think. It is relevant to ask Khan whether he has ever challenged these people and their views on Twitter or in some other forum and, if so, to provide examples. Otherwise people might well assume that he is following them because he agrees with their views. And that is a relevant consideration when the person in question is seeking to become Mayor at a time of enhanced concern about terrorist activity from the sorts of people he is following.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/political-permutations-of-the-different-coalition-options-1.2554071
Executive summary: there aren't any!
(Actually not quite true, the least implausible looks like a Fine Gael minority government, with Fianna Fáil support)
He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50.
He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts.
So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.