And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
Especially when it's fair comment. i.e. if you are Richard Nabavi, say.
Yes, it would be fair comment if I used such terms, but I'm too gentlemanly to do so.
"If Britain left the EEA in order to control immigration, it risks losing access to the internal market."
In services and capital, but not in goods. There's more or less a free market in goods between the EU and Switzerland.
So what? Our comparative advantage is in services.
That like suggesting Anderson could be selected for the England squad for his talents as an opening batsman.
Anderson can bat a bit you know.
Just like we can export goods. He's not in the squad for his batting abilities though.
To extend it a bit, Anderson might be in the squad because of his bowling, but under Junker's management he is being asked to bowl just 10 overs a test and play at number 4.
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
two years ago I would have absolutely agreed. But not now. The high priest of 'centrist moderation' , Tony Blair, is being destroyed in the press. Utterly destroyed. And Donald Trump has atomised republican moderation in the US.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Ah yes - be fun to see how the voters react to that. Hope for Corbyn yet?
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
two years ago I would have absolutely agreed. But not now. The high priest of 'centrist moderation' , Tony Blair, is being destroyed in the press. Utterly destroyed. And Donald Trump has atomised republican moderation in the US.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Possibly, or possibly that being shackled to the corpse makes no difference at all, or (and I think this is probably the most likely explanation) that our EU membership actually helps in selling financial, legal and other business services to the US and elsewhere.
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
How much do we contribute to the US budget? Are the US demanding free movement with their citizens? how much are they trying to regulate our financial services? are they suggesting their supreme court take precedence over ours? Are they suggesting we take our fair share of refugees they unilaterally admitted?
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Possibly, or possibly that being shackled to the corpse makes no difference at all, or (and I think this is probably the most likely explanation) that our EU membership actually helps in selling financial, legal and other business services to the US and elsewhere.
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
You can probably replace the USA with Wall Street. The number one and two global financial centres are massively interdependent. Who'd have thought it.
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
McTernan blatantly trying to stir up relationships between the Tory party membership and leadership - at the end of the day he is a Labour supporter.
He did have a point with his summary of the state of political parties in general. I'm not sure what the solution is but it certainly isn't to go around crushing anyone.
"two fundamental facts about modern political parties: their membership, despite blips, is too small to be in any real sense representative of voters, and at the same time too large to be a proper, modern, professional organisation. This is the tearing tension in modern parties – the desire to "involve people", which risks getting big decisions wrong, and the need to centralise, which risks accusations of control-freakery"
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Possibly, or possibly that being shackled to the corpse makes no difference at all, or (and I think this is probably the most likely explanation) that our EU membership actually helps in selling financial, legal and other business services to the US and elsewhere.
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
Percentages are only relevant when they are Remain percentages.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
How much do we contribute to the US budget? Are the US demanding free movement with their citizens? how much are they trying to regulate our financial services? are they suggesting their supreme court take precedence over ours? Are they suggesting we take our fair share of refugees they unilaterally admitted?
Actually, US regulations are pretty closely watched in the City. Look at the extra-territorial land grabs by the SEC and DoJ recently.
I use crowdscores. I have a suggestion - when you load up a match you get the score at the top, would it be possible to add a summary of who scored the goals and when. I really don't like scrolling through the boneheaded comments.
You can turn off the comments (and yes there are lots of bonehead ones ) by clicking on the little 'speech bubble' icon in the top right hand corner of the screen
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
No, it's perfectly logical. The Leavers are trying to tell us we are held back in other markets by EU membership. As evidence of this, they cite the fact that, err, we are doing very well in other markets.
Well, possibly, but I'm a scientist. I can recognise an unproven hypothesis when I see one, and my immediate reaction is to consider other hypotheses.
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
two years ago I would have absolutely agreed. But not now. The high priest of 'centrist moderation' , Tony Blair, is being destroyed in the press. Utterly destroyed. And Donald Trump has atomised republican moderation in the US.
Trump is not yet POTUS I think.
True but its already certain the republican party will never be the same, even if and when Trump loses.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
It would also allow us to sign free trade deals for goods and services with a bunch of mid-sized Asian and LatAm countries where the EU is only interested in goods trade.
Robert Hiscox was speaking at an event I was at last night. He said that the reason why Hiscox Insurance went to Bermuda was because the EU basically banned a significant part of their most profitable business (selling insurance in Brazil and Mexico) because it wasn't permitted under their rules.
He also said that they had set up their European office 23 years ago, and their American one 10 years ago but that - despite the Americans putting up serious barriers to entry (state insurance rules) their US business was currently more than twice the size of their European one.
Obviously only insurance, but the sector is very internationally minded as a whole
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
McTernan blatantly trying to stir up relationships between the Tory party membership and leadership - at the end of the day he is a Labour supporter.
He did have a point with his summary of the state of political parties in general. I'm not sure what the solution is but it certainly isn't to go around crushing anyone.
"two fundamental facts about modern political parties: their membership, despite blips, is too small to be in any real sense representative of voters, and at the same time too large to be a proper, modern, professional organisation. This is the tearing tension in modern parties – the desire to "involve people", which risks getting big decisions wrong, and the need to centralise, which risks accusations of control-freakery"
Agreed - and so nice to hear rationality and insight on here for a change.
McTernan blatantly trying to stir up relationships between the Tory party membership and leadership - at the end of the day he is a Labour supporter.
He did have a point with his summary of the state of political parties in general. I'm not sure what the solution is but it certainly isn't to go around crushing anyone.
"two fundamental facts about modern political parties: their membership, despite blips, is too small to be in any real sense representative of voters, and at the same time too large to be a proper, modern, professional organisation. This is the tearing tension in modern parties – the desire to "involve people", which risks getting big decisions wrong, and the need to centralise, which risks accusations of control-freakery"
To be fair, the headline (which he probably didn't choose) is a lot more lurid than the article.
Having said that, I'm not sure he understands Conservative associations at all well.
Just caught R5 presenter get shirty about the fact only 1 in 7 Blue Plaques are women. Her reasoning for this was that it must be modern day sexism, because women must be being nominated and rejected. Her impartial educated informed stance was it was a disgrace.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Possibly, or possibly that being shackled to the corpse makes no difference at all, or (and I think this is probably the most likely explanation) that our EU membership actually helps in selling financial, legal and other business services to the US and elsewhere.
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
Please explain why you think it is "the most likely explanation"
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
Possibly, or possibly that being shackled to the corpse makes no difference at all, or (and I think this is probably the most likely explanation) that our EU membership actually helps in selling financial, legal and other business services to the US and elsewhere.
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
You can probably replace the USA with Wall Street. The number one and two global financial centres are massively interdependent. Who'd have thought it.
What is the nature / make-up of UK financial service exports to the US compared to those to the EU?
Are our exports to the US simply a function of us having the Europe HQs of the US banks in London and will that change if we leave the EU?
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
two years ago I would have absolutely agreed. But not now. The high priest of 'centrist moderation' , Tony Blair, is being destroyed in the press. Utterly destroyed. And Donald Trump has atomised republican moderation in the US.
Trump is not yet POTUS I think.
True but its already certain the republican party will never be the same, even if and when Trump loses.
Politics only works with parties interested in government - despite all the current froth that is what most voters want.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
I use crowdscores. I have a suggestion - when you load up a match you get the score at the top, would it be possible to add a summary of who scored the goals and when. I really don't like scrolling through the boneheaded comments.
You can turn off the comments (and yes there are lots of bonehead ones ) by clicking on the little 'speech bubble' icon in the top right hand corner of the screen
Oh that's great news. I think you need to make that a bit more prominent, I thought the speech bubble was to make a new comment!
The Remain supporters should be in a comfortable position. On one side you have the Establishment. On the other you have the Keystone Cops.
Yet above the head of Remain hangs the Sword of Damocles. One or two atrocities, a massive influx of migrants in the middle of June, any one of a number of imponderables. That horse hair is very fine.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
No, it's perfectly logical. The Leavers are trying to tell us we are held back in other markets by EU membership. As evidence of this, they cite the fact that, err, we are doing very well in other markets.
Well, possibly, but I'm a scientist. I can recognise an unproven hypothesis when I see one, and my immediate reaction is to consider other hypotheses.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
I think that is the most convoluted thinking imaginable. That's like saying heads I win tails you lose.
No, it's perfectly logical. The Leavers are trying to tell us we are held back in other markets by EU membership. As evidence of this, they cite the fact that, err, we are doing very well in other markets.
Well, possibly, but I'm a scientist. I can recognise an unproven hypothesis when I see one, and my immediate reaction is to consider other hypotheses.
No its not logical. We don't have a free trade deal with the USA on this because of our membership of the EU.
Now if free trade agreements are meaningful then we are missing out and should have more exports to the USA. If free trade agreements are meaningless then that undercuts the whole raison d'etre of the EU.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
You can probably replace the USA with Wall Street. The number one and two global financial centres are massively interdependent. Who'd have thought it.
What is the nature / make-up of UK financial service exports to the US compared to those to the EU?
Are our exports to the US simply a function of us having the Europe HQs of the US banks in London and will that change if we leave the EU?
One imagines a large proportion of it is the EU/regional HQ selling services to the global HQ in NYC.
As for the latter, I honestly couldn't say. If we stay in the EEA I doubt anything will really change.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
I knew Sadiq Khan had, I hadn't realised that Zac Goldsmith had.
As you say, idiotic politics.
I don't even understand what the low political gain is - how this accrues votes.
How many black cab drivers are there, 20,000? 30,000? How many people use uber, half a million?
Given that the trillionaire Zac Goldsmith was already anti-Uber, this could and should have been an easy win for Khan, on behalf of the little people. Flunked it.
Isn't Khan spinning as part of the Corbynista protectism nonsense.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
It would also allow us to sign free trade deals for goods and services with a bunch of mid-sized Asian and LatAm countries where the EU is only interested in goods trade.
Robert Hiscox was speaking at an event I was at last night. He said that the reason why Hiscox Insurance went to Bermuda was because the EU basically banned a significant part of their most profitable business (selling insurance in Brazil and Mexico) because it wasn't permitted under their rules.
He also said that they had set up their European office 23 years ago, and their American one 10 years ago but that - despite the Americans putting up serious barriers to entry (state insurance rules) their US business was currently more than twice the size of their European one.
Obviously only insurance, but the sector is very internationally minded as a whole
It doesn't surprise me one bit. The EU is extremely inward looking when it comes to trade in services. Whenever the EU signs trade deals it is predicated to goods and services are an afterthought. As for Richard's assertion that it is because we're in the EU that we trade so well with the US in the sector, well it's a bit far fetched.
A quick bit of Googling on Zac and Uber suggests he's not anti-Uber:
Goldsmith also said that while he thinks London’s black cabs are “worth protecting”, recent proposals from TfL to regulate private hire minicabs such as Uber are “misguided”.
He said that while he welcomed some regulations, such as a limit on the number of licenses issued, any market interventions had to be “sensible” and “people have to be able to understand why they’re being brought in.”
“Things like the five-minute pause, I don’t think any customers going to understand why there is a cab hanging around nearby and they have to wait five minutes.”
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
It's also doing wonders for their electability.
Indeed. The Labour membership are at the loony end of the political spectrum - and significantly at variance from the average Labour voter. They love all the Corbyn shite. So their electability dives. The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Those that are anti-Uber (or rather the idea of Uber) are the sort of people back in the day would have been anti-car because it was going to put drivers of horse draw carts out of business.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
If Vote Leave dominate and get the designation, and Leave.EU are sidelined, there will be "Leave splits" stories anyway because of the size of Farage's and Aaron Banks's ego, so the best thing for Vote Leave to do would be to just press on with their vision regardless.
I think this is rather unfair. 'Leave.EU' is generally the same people who've been advocating EU withdrawal all along and have the scars to show for it. I don't find it surprising they're not falling over with joy to be led by Vote Leave, many of whom are rather late to the party. If Vote Leave do get the designation I would be very disappointed to see Farage sidelined; he is a formidable debater and cannot be faulted on his knowledge of the EU.
Be LEAVE, the pro-LEAVE grouping for PBers, with honorary membership for all PB LEAVErs.
'He also said that they had set up their European office 23 years ago, and their American one 10 years ago but that - despite the Americans putting up serious barriers to entry (state insurance rules) their US business was currently more than twice the size of their European one.'
Well apart from the utter stupidity of some of the rules emanating from the EU ,there is in this comment a much more basic message.
Which is that, over the long run, it is the relative growth of different markets that should drive trade flows - not the minutiae of various trade agreements.
On that basis, the US, Asia and many emerging markets are overwhelmingly likely to outperform the sclerotic EU.
And our commercial policies should be tailored towards benefiting from the stronger relative growth in those markets, not trying to wring a few last dregs out of the EU markets (especially given the associated costs of trying to do so).
Please explain why you think it is "the most likely explanation"
Because US financial institutions like to trade with counterparties who can cover the whole of the EU, a market of 500m people. They like to deal with legal firms who can operate seamlessly in the 28 countries. etc etc etc. All the normal arguments of scale.
I am not saying this is right, what I am saying is that it is lazy to assume that things would automatically be better in this respect outside the EU. Why would they be? What exactly is the City prevented from doing in terms of trade with the US as a result of EU membership?
As I said, the figures provide zero insight into this argument one way or the other.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
If Vote Leave dominate and get the designation, and Leave.EU are sidelined, there will be "Leave splits" stories anyway because of the size of Farage's and Aaron Banks's ego, so the best thing for Vote Leave to do would be to just press on with their vision regardless.
I think this is rather unfair. 'Leave.EU' is generally the same people who've been advocating EU withdrawal all along and have the scars to show for it. I don't find it surprising they're not falling over with joy to be led by Vote Leave, many of whom are rather late to the party. If Vote Leave do get the designation I would be very disappointed to see Farage sidelined; he is a formidable debater and cannot be faulted on his knowledge of the EU.
Be LEAVE, the pro-LEAVE grouping for PBers, with honorary membership for all PB LEAVErs.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
The fact the corpse is taking less than a third of our Financial Services exports even with the Single Market while the USA is taking almost identically the same without a free trade agreement does indicate to me that we are missing out on opportunities elsewhere.
You can probably replace the USA with Wall Street. The number one and two global financial centres are massively interdependent. Who'd have thought it.
What is the nature / make-up of UK financial service exports to the US compared to those to the EU?
Are our exports to the US simply a function of us having the Europe HQs of the US banks in London and will that change if we leave the EU?
One imagines a large proportion of it is the EU/regional HQ selling services to the global HQ in NYC.
As for the latter, I honestly couldn't say. If we stay in the EEA I doubt anything will really change.
It would be nice to have some data for this - I can imagine a medium size accountancy firm auditing a firm in the Netherlands much more easily than it auditing a firm in New Hampshire. I can't see how we can just reduce financial exports to %s and say they are all the same.
Also are we sure staying in the EEA is what most of the Out voters want? I'd assumed their main concern was immigration and that would be unaffected by joining the EEA.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
Why do you conclude that?
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
I think you're heading off down a blind alley there.
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country. It's like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Frankfurt or Paris in that regard.
London, and to a lesser extent Singapore, are the only markets that are actively pursuing a global strategy, driven by the small size of their domestic markets
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
Why do you conclude that?
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
Or put another even more simple way 33% of our sales go to the EU vs 67% of the sales do not.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
It's also doing wonders for their electability.
Indeed. The Labour membership are at the loony end of the political spectrum - and significantly at variance from the average Labour voter. They love all the Corbyn shite. So their electability dives. The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure you're wrong to think of Tory members as representative of the voters. An ideologically driven Tory party didn't poll too well under Hague or IDS. it has been Cameron/Osborne' s achievement to make the party electable. Forget that and forget government.
'Entirely correct. Anyone who played a key role in encouraging Euro entry making these warnings who does the same now with a straight face and no apology or acknowledgement they were wrong last time should be ignored.'
Indeed. Which probably also encompasses some of the louder Remainers on this board.
Not me, guv.
Let me tell you where I am.. (!)
Anything which impinges directly upon sovereignty I will resist. The Euro, ECU, the Fiscal Compact, SSM/SRM, where what I determine as our core decision-making, impinging on the political mandate given to the government by the British people, is compromised or diluted.
Now I have of course drawn my own red line at what I think is de trop.
I don't think mutually-agreed trade rules that, for example, favour Portugese, and disadvantage UK basket-weavers crosses it. Neither do I mind signing up to a set of regulations for eg. the financial services industry where we have had our say and have arrived at a compromise. Such is a trade agreement...you win some, you lose some.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
So do you believe the right of the ECJ to overule UK court decisions dies not cross a red line?
Richard hi I responded to this earlier, and @DavidL as ever added a more elegant response also.
In short, as you say, the ECJ rules on the single market and as David mentions (and he's a Leaver), if we are going to have a single market, then we perforce need an institution that has been invested with the authority to decide in each case when disputes arise. I get a vaguely queasy feeling that a ruling on one EU member is binding upon all but in the scheme of things I can live with its failings.
It should also be noted that the UK, institutionally, is one of the larger users of the ECJ and also one of the most eager and strict of its adherents. Not to say of course that precisely that issue isn't a main plank of the Leave argument.
No copyright for Lindt's gold chocolate bunny, I say - sod 'em.
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
Richard, you've made the assertion, it is up to you to prove it, not for us to disprove it. I'm not saying it is true or untrue, just that you've put the idea forwards without doing the leg-work, it's understandable that people would be sceptical about it.
Business Insider have unearthed a 1987 ITN clip of a dashing Paul Mason handing out the Workers’ Power newspaper and talking about “building revolutionary politics within the Labour Party”. Workers’ Power were a militant Trotskyist entryist group which infiltrated Labour in the eighties when Mason was working as a music teacher – his economics is all self-taught. The same year Mason was distributing their material, they published a pamphlet commemorating the Russian revolution and praising Lenin. It has taken nearly thirty years to achieve his entryist ambitions, now finally Labour’s Shadow Chancellor has signed him up to help with Labour’s economic policy…
It's funny isn't it? Europhiles have always used (often inaccurate) arguments like '50% plus of our trade goes to the EU' or 'exports to the EU have grown faster than those to the ROW' as arguments for EU membership - and indeed euro membership.
But apparently you can't use these kinds of figures as evidence against the EU if they point the other way.
As someone else said, the Europhiles are trying to say 'heads I win, tails you lose'.
Specious nonsense. You frequently post about those you disagree with politically in far worse terms. In this post you've just described other posters as intellectually vacuous -is that not an insult? Surely if you followed your own guidance, you should be saying something along the lines of - 'such insults are understandable but stem from an incomplete reading of the issues in my opinion'.
Not at all. I make a distinction between sensible people whose views I may disagree with, and people who throw ludicrous insults around, for example those who absurdly accuse me of lying (quite why I would have any motivation to lie on politicalbetting.com is never clear!)
David Cameron frequently throws ludicrous insults around, including accusing supporters of a rival party of concealed racism, and diagnosing them all with mental illness, then refusing to apologise for those remarks when given the opportunity. According to your criterion, those remarks must take him outside the realms of sensible people with whom one disagrees, and into the realms of the intellectually vacuous.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
It's also doing wonders for their electability.
Indeed. The Labour membership are at the loony end of the political spectrum - and significantly at variance from the average Labour voter. They love all the Corbyn shite. So their electability dives. The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Many centrists on either side like McTernan and Paris confuse Tory leavers with the Tory right. The two are nit necessarily coterminous. I"m a fairly consensual mid-right Cameroon in most respects, but have been a BOOer since about 1996. It's neither an extreme nor an unpopular position.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
Richard, you've made the assertion, it is up to you to prove it, not for us to disprove it. I'm not saying it is true or untrue, just that you've put the idea forwards without doing the leg-work, it's understandable that people would be sceptical about it.
I haven't made any assertion. I have challenged a hypothesis which others have put forward as an assertion, made with zero supporting evidence, by providing two alternative hypotheses which fit the quoted fact equally well. I'm inclined to think that one of them might be the most likely of the three possibilities, but no more than that.
Sometimes it seems I'm the only person here keeping an open mind!
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
It's funny isn't it? Europhiles have always used (often inaccurate) arguments like '50% plus of our trade goes to the EU' or 'exports to the EU have grown faster than those to the ROW' as arguments for EU membership - and indeed euro membership.
But apparently you can't use these kinds of figures as evidence against the EU if they point the other way.
As someone else said, the Europhiles are trying to say 'heads I win, tails you lose'.
Anyone who says that 50% of our trade is done with the EU is an out and out liar. Even the official statistics which include re-exports via Rotterdam and goods trade that only transits through the UK to other parts of the EU is 44% by value. It was about 55% under Labour, but to their credit both Osborne and Cable saw how unbalanced that was and tried to remedy it. The real figure of UK goods exports is anywhere between 34-38%.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
It's also doing wonders for their electability.
Indeed. The Labour membership are at the loony end of the political spectrum - and significantly at variance from the average Labour voter. They love all the Corbyn shite. So their electability dives. The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Many centrists on either side like McTernan and Paris confuse Tory leavers with the Tory right. The two are nit necessarily coterminous. I"m a fairly consensual mid-right Cameroon in most respects, but have been a BOOer since about 1996. It's neither an extreme nor an unpopular position.
Agree. Every Tory leader who has sided with Europhiles has been made to regret it. One day the party will elect itself a leader who is instinctively on the right side of the EU debate.
One thing we have not discussed at all in the EU referendum debate is around Gordon Brown deserving to be flayed alive and dipped in lemon juice for ratifying Lisbon without a referendum. The UK would never have accepted it so he railroaded us. In centuries past this kind of betrayal would have been a capital crime. A Lisbon NO was our real opportunity to get the 'reformed' EU Dave would like but isn't ever going to see. We had traction then.
Agree. Every Tory leader who has sided with Europhiles has been made to regret it. One day the party will elect itself a leader who is instinctively on the right side of the EU debate.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
The issue, as Charles pointed out, is that the EU does put up trade barriers with RoW markets and, as we have seen on a number of occasions, actively try and undermine London's status.
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
Richard, you've made the assertion, it is up to you to prove it, not for us to disprove it. I'm not saying it is true or untrue, just that you've put the idea forwards without doing the leg-work, it's understandable that people would be sceptical about it.
I haven't made any assertion. I have challenged a hypothesis which others have put forward as an assertion, made with zero supporting evidence, by providing two alternative hypotheses which fit the quoted fact equally well. I'm inclined to think that one of them might be the most likely of the three possibilities, but no more than that.
Sometimes it seems I'm the only person here keeping an open mind!
Your inclinations are based on the sum total of what?
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
The issue, as Charles pointed out, is that the EU does put up trade barriers with RoW markets and, as we have seen on a number of occasions, actively try and undermine London's status.
And they won't still be able to do that to us if we are out of the EU but in the EEA?
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
In my experience, not. US firms hire the people they see as most appropriate for the job and/or those that they owe. Being in Europe doesn't affect that.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
What is meant by Euroscepticism? I know that sounds obvious but as a guess the people for whom it is the number one issue are generally Tories. However if you look at voting patterns in general, poorer areas may be more likely to support Brexit. I suppose we will see.
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
In my experience, not. US firms hire the people they see as most appropriate for the job and/or those that they owe. Being in Europe doesn't affect that.
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
We aren't the domestic market for Europe. Frankfurt and Paris are & the eurozone countries are determined to keep it that way. We are the market for international capital flows.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fare. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
Farriers???!!!
Are you kidding me?
If you can't find a farrier it's because they are on holiday in Barbados.
Sometimes it seems I'm the only person here keeping an open mind
Beyond parody.
So, runnymede, tell me what you think are the top five or six valid arguments for staying in the EU (compared with, say, the EEA option). No need to prioritise, just the first few that come into your head.
Based on the fact that 33% of our sales go to the EU - where we have the supposed benefits of the single market - vs 31% of our sales going to the US where we don't.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
I think that proxy is too simplistic, not least for the reason @MaxPB gives. In any case it doesn't address the possibility that our sales to the US are helped by us being EU members.
In my experience, not. US firms hire the people they see as most appropriate for the job and/or those that they owe. Being in Europe doesn't affect that.
Depends on the kind of business, surely.
Of course. But there are very few that access to the EU markets is critical.
And - as you haven't challenged (as far as I'm aware) - Daniel Hodson's comment yesterday that the EU Treaties explicitly forbid restrictions on movement of capital between the EU and third party countries
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
It's far more likely, of course, that the activist and members will rise up and take revenge on the quisling-faced whores, sorry, Cameroons.
Yes - the Labour party has discovered that ultimate power in political parties resides with those who can vote. The blue rinse set may well exact their revenge. Not least on Osborne if he is one of the two new leader candidates.
It's also doing wonders for their electability.
Indeed. The Labour membership are at the loony end of the political spectrum - and significantly at variance from the average Labour voter. They love all the Corbyn shite. So their electability dives. The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Many centrists on either side like McTernan and Paris confuse Tory leavers with the Tory right. The two are nit necessarily coterminous. I"m a fairly consensual mid-right Cameroon in most respects, but have been a BOOer since about 1996. It's neither an extreme nor an unpopular position.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
Yes, absolutely: and Uber know this. They are investing in driverclass cars already.
Of course. But there are very few that access to the EU markets is critical.
And - as you haven't challenged (as far as I'm aware) - Daniel Hodson's comment yesterday that the EU Treaties explicitly forbid restrictions on movement of capital between the EU and third party countries
No - they are saying we could do *even better* in other markets than we do now.
Yes, but the percentage figure is not evidence of that. It's not evidence of the contrary either, of course.
But what it says is that the membership of the Single Market doesn't deliver material benefits vs. the US - especially as the EU is significantly larger in population terms than the US.
And the US has the other major global financial centre. What would the percentages look like without Lon-NYC trade?
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
The issue, as Charles pointed out, is that the EU does put up trade barriers with RoW markets and, as we have seen on a number of occasions, actively try and undermine London's status.
And they won't still be able to do that if we are out of the EU but in the EEA?
Not really. As it stands the government must pass all EU regulations on banking and finance which means financial services sales to Asia and LatAm from London are governed by EU regulations which are finicky and sometimes intended to hamper the City's growth. Within the EEA, only financial services trade with the EU need be governed by EU regulations, they would have no say over our trade with the likes of Korea or Thailand etc... If our companies wanted to sell insurance from London to people in Korea the EU would get no say over how we go about doing that.
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
What is meant by Euroscepticism? I know that sounds obvious but as a guess the people for whom it is the number one issue are generally Tories. However if you look at voting patterns in general, poorer areas may be more likely to support Brexit. I suppose we will see.
For Yougov, it means Brexit.
I think right wing working class seats are more likely to support Brexit than right wing middle class seats, but both are more likely to support Brexit than left wing seats.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fare. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
Farriers???!!!
Are you kidding me?
If you can't find a farrier it's because they are on holiday in Barbados.
It's a highly skilled job, and dangerous sticking a horses' leg between yours ! The one my better half uses earns his ~£15 a shoe.
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fare. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The decline of the NY taxi industry is quite staggering. Medallions which once cost $1m + have seen their value collapse. Many who purchased them did so using loans.
'Entirely correct. Anyone who played a key role in encouraging Euro entry making these warnings who does the same now with a straight face and no apology or acknowledgement they were wrong last time should be ignored.'
Indeed. Which probably also encompasses some of the louder Remainers on this board.
Not me, guv.
Let me tell you where I am.. (!)
Anything which impinges directly upon sovereignty I will resist. The Euro, ECU, the Fiscal Compact, SSM/SRM, where what I determine as our core decision-making, impinging on the political mandate given to the government by the British people, is compromised or diluted.
Now I have of course drawn my own red line at what I think is de trop.
I don't think mutually-agreed trade rules that, for example, favour Portugese, and disadvantage UK basket-weavers crosses it. Neither do I mind signing up to a set of regulations for eg. the financial services industry where we have had our say and have arrived at a compromise. Such is a trade agreement...you win some, you lose some.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
So do you believe the right of the ECJ to overule UK court decisions dies not cross a red line?
Richard hi I responded to this earlier, and @DavidL as ever added a more elegant response also.
In short, as you say, the ECJ rules on the single market and as David mentions (and he's a Leaver), if we are going to have a single market, then we perforce need an institution that has been invested with the authority to decide in each case when disputes arise. I get a vaguely queasy feeling that a ruling on one EU member is binding upon all but in the scheme of things I can live with its failings.
It should also be noted that the UK, institutionally, is one of the larger users of the ECJ and also one of the most eager and strict of its adherents. Not to say of course that precisely that issue isn't a main plank of the Leave argument.
No copyright for Lindt's gold chocolate bunny, I say - sod 'em.
But the ECJ does not only rule on the Single Market. It also rules on myriad other issues that are nothing to do with the Single Market.
If we were in the EEA then the EFTA court would rule on all these matters related to the Single Market. But it would only rule on those. Not on the other 70%+ of legislation that has nothing yo do with the Single Market.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
What if the public decide they'd rather be driven by a real person who is familiar with the area they're working in, as opposed to a real person who doesn't know, or a driverless vehicle?
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Exactly. It's an entirely different and conceptually superior way of delivering a product/service. Not just a refinement, a tweak, but a whole and better ball game. Like TV overtaking the wireless. It is therefore unstoppable. And any city that tries to stop it is self harming.
Agreed. There's a role for some regulation (I think uber should accept that it is not just an intermediary and take on responsibility/liability for insurance and for driver behaviour) but things like the 5 minute delay or caps on the numbers of drivers are ridiculous
Business Insider have unearthed a 1987 ITN clip of a dashing Paul Mason handing out the Workers’ Power newspaper and talking about “building revolutionary politics within the Labour Party”. Workers’ Power were a militant Trotskyist entryist group which infiltrated Labour in the eighties when Mason was working as a music teacher – his economics is all self-taught. The same year Mason was distributing their material, they published a pamphlet commemorating the Russian revolution and praising Lenin. It has taken nearly thirty years to achieve his entryist ambitions, now finally Labour’s Shadow Chancellor has signed him up to help with Labour’s economic policy…
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
As much as it pains me to say this, and as a member of the party who campaigns for Zac, I would probably have voted for Jowell if she had won Labour's nomination. She was in favour of Heathrow.
None of the other candidates are in favour of expansion iirc.
Comments
Just quoting percentages doesn't by itself give the faintest clue as to which applies.
Well we are getting used to these increasingly tortuous formulations from Richard. He should have been a Jesuit.
He did have a point with his summary of the state of political parties in general. I'm not sure what the solution is but it certainly isn't to go around crushing anyone.
"two fundamental facts about modern political parties: their membership, despite blips, is too small to be in any real sense representative of voters, and at the same time too large to be a proper, modern, professional organisation. This is the tearing tension in modern parties – the desire to "involve people", which risks getting big decisions wrong, and the need to centralise, which risks accusations of control-freakery"
As you say, idiotic politics.
Well, possibly, but I'm a scientist. I can recognise an unproven hypothesis when I see one, and my immediate reaction is to consider other hypotheses.
He also said that they had set up their European office 23 years ago, and their American one 10 years ago but that - despite the Americans putting up serious barriers to entry (state insurance rules) their US business was currently more than twice the size of their European one.
Obviously only insurance, but the sector is very internationally minded as a whole
Having said that, I'm not sure he understands Conservative associations at all well.
Are our exports to the US simply a function of us having the Europe HQs of the US banks in London and will that change if we leave the EU?
The Remain supporters should be in a comfortable position. On one side you have the Establishment. On the other you have the Keystone Cops.
Yet above the head of Remain hangs the Sword of Damocles. One or two atrocities, a massive influx of migrants in the middle of June, any one of a number of imponderables. That horse hair is very fine.
Now if free trade agreements are meaningful then we are missing out and should have more exports to the USA.
If free trade agreements are meaningless then that undercuts the whole raison d'etre of the EU.
As for the latter, I honestly couldn't say. If we stay in the EEA I doubt anything will really change.
Goldsmith also said that while he thinks London’s black cabs are “worth protecting”, recent proposals from TfL to regulate private hire minicabs such as Uber are “misguided”.
He said that while he welcomed some regulations, such as a limit on the number of licenses issued, any market interventions had to be “sensible” and “people have to be able to understand why they’re being brought in.”
“Things like the five-minute pause, I don’t think any customers going to understand why there is a cab hanging around nearby and they have to wait five minutes.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/15/black-cabs-london-mayor-contenders-call-for-regulatory-change
http://www.cityam.com/226479/conservative-london-mayoral-candidate-zac-goldsmith-hits-back-at-labour-over-business-record-
The blue rinse Tory set are much much closer to Middle England. They basically are Middle England. The Daily Mail incarnate. A Tory leadership that was instinctively hostile to the EU and sought meaningful reform, incl to immigration would poll well.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
Well apart from the utter stupidity of some of the rules emanating from the EU ,there is in this comment a much more basic message.
Which is that, over the long run, it is the relative growth of different markets that should drive trade flows - not the minutiae of various trade agreements.
On that basis, the US, Asia and many emerging markets are overwhelmingly likely to outperform the sclerotic EU.
And our commercial policies should be tailored towards benefiting from the stronger relative growth in those markets, not trying to wring a few last dregs out of the EU markets (especially given the associated costs of trying to do so).
I am not saying this is right, what I am saying is that it is lazy to assume that things would automatically be better in this respect outside the EU. Why would they be? What exactly is the City prevented from doing in terms of trade with the US as a result of EU membership?
As I said, the figures provide zero insight into this argument one way or the other.
We can all agree this now, surely?
Also are we sure staying in the EEA is what most of the Out voters want? I'd assumed their main concern was immigration and that would be unaffected by joining the EEA.
And based on population (as a proxy, although not totally fair) for the EU vs the US.
The vast majority of NYC's trade (from memory) is domestic - effectively it's not a global capital market, it's a domestic market for a very big and sophisticated country. It's like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Frankfurt or Paris in that regard.
London, and to a lesser extent Singapore, are the only markets that are actively pursuing a global strategy, driven by the small size of their domestic markets
In short, as you say, the ECJ rules on the single market and as David mentions (and he's a Leaver), if we are going to have a single market, then we perforce need an institution that has been invested with the authority to decide in each case when disputes arise. I get a vaguely queasy feeling that a ruling on one EU member is binding upon all but in the scheme of things I can live with its failings.
It should also be noted that the UK, institutionally, is one of the larger users of the ECJ and also one of the most eager and strict of its adherents. Not to say of course that precisely that issue isn't a main plank of the Leave argument.
No copyright for Lindt's gold chocolate bunny, I say - sod 'em.
http://order-order.com/2016/03/01/comrade-mason-achieves-entryist-ambition/
But apparently you can't use these kinds of figures as evidence against the EU if they point the other way.
As someone else said, the Europhiles are trying to say 'heads I win, tails you lose'.
And the ideal would be that London and the rest of the UK combined both 'domestic' service of the EU and international service in the way that, as you said, London and Singapore do at the moment.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
Sometimes it seems I'm the only person here keeping an open mind!
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
One thing we have not discussed at all in the EU referendum debate is around Gordon Brown deserving to be flayed alive and dipped in lemon juice for ratifying Lisbon without a referendum. The UK would never have accepted it so he railroaded us. In centuries past this kind of betrayal would have been a capital crime. A Lisbon NO was our real opportunity to get the 'reformed' EU Dave would like but isn't ever going to see. We had traction then.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
Beyond parody.
Are you kidding me?
If you can't find a farrier it's because they are on holiday in Barbados.
And - as you haven't challenged (as far as I'm aware) - Daniel Hodson's comment yesterday that the EU Treaties explicitly forbid restrictions on movement of capital between the EU and third party countries
Just between PBers is fascinating.
I think right wing working class seats are more likely to support Brexit than right wing middle class seats, but both are more likely to support Brexit than left wing seats.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-06/collapse-ny-taxi-cartel
If we were in the EEA then the EFTA court would rule on all these matters related to the Single Market. But it would only rule on those. Not on the other 70%+ of legislation that has nothing yo do with the Single Market.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
None of the other candidates are in favour of expansion iirc.