The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
If there was no economic benefit either way, why on earth would we want to stay in, get bullied and exposed to marauding chancers currently wandering across the continent from further afield?
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…
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
Duh. Out of touch much?
When TFL proposed a clampdown on Uber, the company managed to raise a petition opposing this, with 200,000 signatories, in just a few weeks. It's massively popular.
I would think it depends upon where you live, in my town Uber doesn't exist as far as I know (and I drive everywhere so don't take taxis) so it's a non-issue for me. I imagine that's completely different in London or other cities.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
Or another way of looking at it is that there's no economic negative to leaving the EU, aside from the very short-term, so the arguments about Brexit are largely political.
Personally, with all the powers in our hands, I think in the long-term the potential is there for us to make a fantastic economic success story out of a global UK, particularly as the world changes massively over the next 30-35 years and Europe is eclipsed.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
I think that's fair. There will be many Remainers who vote Remain who will argue vociferously that they are doing so for reasons of the head, rather than the heart, but, in reality, will be basing their vote on emotion just as much as many Leave voters will.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I don't care if it is more expensive, I would much rather use a black cab every time.
I don't think anyone is advocating banning the option to use black cabs.
It is massively unfair for black cabbies though, who are heavily regulated and dont have the option to opt out.
The cabbie demand some of that heavy regulation themselves as a protectionist racket, but yes they will be the losers in the end (just like NY tax medallion racket has been broken and it means a lost of yellow cab drivers have lost out).
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
It would be difficult to think of anything LESS about sexual politics than the EU Referendum.
To the extent that there are people who would like to throw him off a tall building, it has probably nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather more about his recent posting history...
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
Or another way of looking at it is that there's no economic negative to leaving the EU, aside from the very short-term, so the arguments about Brexit are largely political.
Personally, with all the powers in our hands, I think in the long-term the potential is there for us to make a fantastic economic success story out of a global UK, particularly as the world changes massively over the next 30-35 years and Europe is eclipsed.
Surely the impact of having these powers in our hands has already been accounted for in the analysis of the benefits of Brexit? Also does this analysis assume we are in the EEA in which case the concerns people have immigration will rumble on.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
The London authorities seem terribly slack on the data aspects compared to their colleagues across the pond. The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission releases anonymized data of every single taxi ride and Uber within their area of coverage. 1.1bn data records so far.
(For IT types, especially coders, there is an interesting article describing an open-source effort to analyse all this data - code is available on GitHub!)
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I don't care if it is more expensive, I would much rather use a black cab every time.
I don't think anyone is advocating banning the option to use black cabs.
It is massively unfair for black cabbies though, who are heavily regulated and dont have the option to opt out.
The cabbie demand some of that heavy regulation themselves as a protectionist racket, but yes they will be the losers in the end (just like NY tax medallion racket has been broken and it means a lost of yellow cab drivers have lost out).
Addison Lee are the big losers in London at the moment, the black cab drivers are still doing OK but not as well as they have done.
If they ever open up Heathrow to Uber that would change.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
It would be difficult to think of anything LESS about sexual politics than the EU Referendum.
To the extent that there are people who would like to throw him off a tall building, it has probably nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather more about his recent posting history...
I'm afraid you're too late. Mr Royale already has my head marked for a spike.
I suppose you could push the decapitated corpse off a tall building, but that seems a little gratuitous.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
Also no economic negatives from leaving. This is what a lot of people think - economically it will make no difference if we stay or go. Yet in the EEA our membership fee would fall quite drastically, we would be able to set our own terms of trade with RoW nations and pursue free trade in services as our primary aim rather than the EU aim of free trade in goods, we would win back our sovereignty on everything except EU trade which would obviously be done on their terms and we still have single market access.
Yes there are downsides, the City will have fewer "protections" from EU meddling in terms of trade with them as we wouldn't get much say in the rule making process. Initially there might be some economic downside. Food prices might rise once we leave the CAP/CFP area, at least until we begin developing trade ties with other nations on the open market. Energy prices may rise given that we import a fair bit of it from France, but if we're in the EEA it shouldn't.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
It would be difficult to think of anything LESS about sexual politics than the EU Referendum.
To the extent that there are people who would like to throw him off a tall building, it has probably nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather more about his recent posting history...
I'm afraid you're too late. Mr Royale already has my head marked for a spike.
I suppose you could push the decapitated corpse off a tall building, but that seems a little gratuitous.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
It would be difficult to think of anything LESS about sexual politics than the EU Referendum.
To the extent that there are people who would like to throw him off a tall building, it has probably nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather more about his recent posting history...
I'm afraid you're too late. Mr Royale already has my head marked for a spike.
I suppose you could push the decapitated corpse off a tall building, but that seems a little gratuitous.
But if it makes people feel better....
Genuine question: do you really feel there is a homophobic element to the Leave campaign? Being straight, I might not pick up on the subtleties, but I can honestly say I have seen nothing that would trigger any alarms with me on that front. If there were, I would certainly be calling people out and fighting the good fight with you.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
Duh. Out of touch much?
When TFL proposed a clampdown on Uber, the company managed to raise a petition opposing this, with 200,000 signatories, in just a few weeks. It's massively popular.
I would think it depends upon where you live, in my town Uber doesn't exist as far as I know (and I drive everywhere so don't take taxis) so it's a non-issue for me. I imagine that's completely different in London or other cities.
Yes, it's definitely a big city thing - and only certain big cities. I've got a good friend from New Orleans, met him for a drink the other day (he was visiting Blighty) and he had never really heard of Uber. It hasn't properly taken off there yet. Yet it is huge in, say, Bangkok.
London is one of its very biggest markets of all.
Being a Londoner and saying "what's Uber" is like being an internet user and saying "what's Google" in about 2006
What's google? I using Netscape as web broswer and AltaVista for search. Am I missing out on something?
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
Duh. Out of touch much?
When TFL proposed a clampdown on Uber, the company managed to raise a petition opposing this, with 200,000 signatories, in just a few weeks. It's massively popular.
I would think it depends upon where you live, in my town Uber doesn't exist as far as I know (and I drive everywhere so don't take taxis) so it's a non-issue for me. I imagine that's completely different in London or other cities.
Yes, it's definitely a big city thing - and only certain big cities. I've got a good friend from New Orleans, met him for a drink the other day (he was visiting Blighty) and he had never really heard of Uber. It hasn't properly taken off there yet. Yet it is huge in, say, Bangkok.
London is one of its very biggest markets of all.
Being a Londoner and saying "what's Uber" is like being an internet user and saying "what's Google" in about 2006
Genuine question: do you really feel there is a homophobic element to the Leave campaign? Being straight, I might not pick up on the subtleties, but I can honestly say I have seen nothing that would trigger any alarms with me on that front. If there were, I would certainly be calling people out and fighting the good fight with you.
I think that UKIP have been outright homophobic and played on homophobia absolutely. However Leave are not UKIP. If it was it would be running on about 13% not 35-55%.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
Or another way of looking at it is that there's no economic negative to leaving the EU, aside from the very short-term, so the arguments about Brexit are largely political.
Personally, with all the powers in our hands, I think in the long-term the potential is there for us to make a fantastic economic success story out of a global UK, particularly as the world changes massively over the next 30-35 years and Europe is eclipsed.
Surely the impact of having these powers in our hands has already been accounted for in the analysis of the benefits of Brexit? Also does this analysis assume we are in the EEA in which case the concerns people have immigration will rumble on.
Tbh, making economic forecasts over that timeframe is a black art not a science.
What they will have done is made some sensible (based upon what we know now) assumptions on what we'd do and how they'd be used, and projected the numbers forwards, with a few alternate scenarios, and caveated it accordingly in the conclusions. The MoE will be huge.
The basis of my argument is that with full trade and regulatory powers repatriated we'd be far faster and more flexible in responding to changing world circumstances, both in striking trade deals and in responding to changing global trade patterns, as the global economy evolves over the next 35 years.
To answer @MarqueeMark's question, no I don't see any homophobic element to the Leave campaign. My concerns are about xenophobia, protectionism and a wider feeling that Leave is about pulling up the drawbridge and retreating from a complicated world with difficult choices.
I would be quite happy to have my decision classified as emotional. I have always made it clear that it was not just going to be about economics for me.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
Duh. Out of touch much?
When TFL proposed a clampdown on Uber, the company managed to raise a petition opposing this, with 200,000 signatories, in just a few weeks. It's massively popular.
I would think it depends upon where you live, in my town Uber doesn't exist as far as I know (and I drive everywhere so don't take taxis) so it's a non-issue for me. I imagine that's completely different in London or other cities.
Yes, it's definitely a big city thing - and only certain big cities. I've got a good friend from New Orleans, met him for a drink the other day (he was visiting Blighty) and he had never really heard of Uber. It hasn't properly taken off there yet. Yet it is huge in, say, Bangkok.
London is one of its very biggest markets of all.
Being a Londoner and saying "what's Uber" is like being an internet user and saying "what's Google" in about 2006
What's google? I using Netscape as web broswer and AltaVista for search. Am I missing out on something?
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I don't care if it is more expensive, I would much rather use a black cab every time.
I don't think anyone is advocating banning the option to use black cabs.
It is massively unfair for black cabbies though, who are heavily regulated and dont have the option to opt out.
Yes, that's the answer. Deregulate black cabbies and make life easier for them, so they can compete. But then cabbies have to accept apps, no more tips, take credit cards, etc
Why no tips? If that's a regulation it should be dropped for both.
Anyone who doesn't take credit cards in 2016 deserves to be out of business.
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…
How on earth did the BBC and ITNC4News judge that he would provide impartial reporting? Beyond a joke.
If it was impossible to get a job if one did anything silly 30 years earlier, there would be rather a lot of unemployed - Boris, for instance...
Mason was doing this about 10 years before joining BBC when he was already well into his 20s. Mason also had several speaking events at socialist gatherings before and during his time on BBC Newsnight. His far left political and economic beliefs were clear and known. It would be inconcievable for a UKIP supporter to be hired by Newsnight. But hiring a marxist/SWP supporter etc is ok. Sorry NickP if you fail to see the problem of impartiality.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
Duh. Out of touch much?
When TFL proposed a clampdown on Uber, the company managed to raise a petition opposing this, with 200,000 signatories, in just a few weeks. It's massively popular.
I would think it depends upon where you live, in my town Uber doesn't exist as far as I know (and I drive everywhere so don't take taxis) so it's a non-issue for me. I imagine that's completely different in London or other cities.
Yes, it's definitely a big city thing - and only certain big cities. I've got a good friend from New Orleans, met him for a drink the other day (he was visiting Blighty) and he had never really heard of Uber. It hasn't properly taken off there yet. Yet it is huge in, say, Bangkok.
London is one of its very biggest markets of all.
Being a Londoner and saying "what's Uber" is like being an internet user and saying "what's Google" in about 2006
What's google? I using Netscape as web broswer and AltaVista for search. Am I missing out on something?
George Osborne Income tax receipts from highest earners up £8bn to 28% of total paid in 1st year of 45p top rate, @HMRCgovuk stats released today show
Thats a meaningless statistic unless you know what highest earners are. Top 50%?? Top 1%??
It's also meaningless without a comparison of what the tax take would have been had the 50% rate stayed in place.
No it's not as that's impossible to know as you don't know what incomes would have been or who would have emigrated or who would not have immigrated had the 50% stayed in place.
Or another way of looking at it is that there's no economic negative to leaving the EU, aside from the very short-term, so the arguments about Brexit are largely political.
On the assumption that we move to an EEA-style deal (which in market-access terms is much the same as the EU), that's probably true, except for the important provisos that 'the very short-term' is unlikely to be less than two years and may be several years, given the uncertainties of the Brexit process, and that the short-term hit may be quite severe.
It might be the case that the hit would comprise deferred rather than permanently-lost growth (through investment delayed but not lost), but it's very hard to be confident of that. A lot would depend on how quickly and smoothly we could agree a new deal.
It might also be the case that the EEA option would be better (in economic terms) in the long-term, because of the famous free-trade agreements. I'm sceptical that there's much juice in that, though.
It might also be the case, as some claim, that the City would do better in that scenario. That would depend on whether the Eurozone takes advantage our lack of a say in regulation and our lack of institutional protection in the EEA option, balanced against whether we could take more advantage of non-EU-regulated business.
Ultimately it comes down to assessing those risks, together with an assessment of the political benefits of the EEA option (CAP, CFP, justice, social) vs the disbenefits (lack of any say in how the EU and Single Market develops, outcry when voters realise they've been conned over immigration).
My judgement is that it's not worth the candle, but others on the same facts will give different weights to the argument.
To answer @MarqueeMark's question, no I don't see any homophobic element to the Leave campaign. My concerns are about xenophobia, protectionism and a wider feeling that Leave is about pulling up the drawbridge and retreating from a complicated world with difficult choices.
I would be quite happy to have my decision classified as emotional. I have always made it clear that it was not just going to be about economics for me.
I think this vote is going to come down to "emotional" for most of us.... For me, it's an emotional attachment to democracy on a national level. And when we say it's about the ability to "throw the buggers out"... we are not tapping into our inner-ISIS!
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
I don't disregard it. I say that in the context of the whole report which strikes a very different tone from the one you are hoping to convey it is highly misleading. Much like many of the comments and statements you make in here.
If you're going to be an odious berk for the next four months, this is going to be a long referendum campaign. But so be it.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I don't care if it is more expensive, I would much rather use a black cab every time.
I don't think anyone is advocating banning the option to use black cabs.
It is massively unfair for black cabbies though, who are heavily regulated and dont have the option to opt out.
Yes, that's the answer. Deregulate black cabbies and make life easier for them, so they can compete. But then cabbies have to accept apps, no more tips, take credit cards, etc
But they could still have special bus lane access as a reward for their training. The polluting inefficient vehicles have to be phased out.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
The economic analysis is very simple.
There will be a near term hit.
Overall we will probably do slightly better outside the EU.
But it's all MOE stuff. We'll be fine, whatever way round it happens.
Or another way of looking at it is that there's no economic negative to leaving the EU, aside from the very short-term, so the arguments about Brexit are largely political.
On the assumption that we move to an EEA-style deal (which in market-access terms is much the same as the EU), that's probably true, except for the important provisos that 'the very short-term' is unlikely to be less than two years and may be several years, given the uncertainties of the Brexit process, and that the short-term hit may be quite severe.
It might be the case that the hit would comprise deferred rather than permanently-lost growth (through investment delayed but not lost), but it's very hard to be confident of that. A lot would depend on how quickly and smoothly we could agree a new deal.
It might also be the case that the EEA option would be better (in economic terms) in the long-term, because of the famous free-trade agreements. I'm sceptical that there's much juice in that, though.
It might also be the case, as some claim, that the City would do better in that scenario. That would depend on whether the Eurozone takes advantage our lack of a say in regulation and our lack of institutional protection in the EEA option, balanced against whether we could take more advantage of non-EU-regulated business.
Ultimately it comes down to assessing those risks, together with an assessment of the political benefits of the EEA option (CAP, CFP, justice, social) vs the disbenefits (lack of any say in how the EU and Single Market develops, outcry when voters realise they've been conned over immigration).
My judgement is that it's not worth the candle, but others on the same facts will give different weights to the argument.
Given that only about 5% of EU laws and regulations need to be implemented in the EEA why do you think it would not be worth it? You haven't taken that into account that I can see.
To answer @MarqueeMark's question, no I don't see any homophobic element to the Leave campaign. My concerns are about xenophobia, protectionism and a wider feeling that Leave is about pulling up the drawbridge and retreating from a complicated world with difficult choices.
I would be quite happy to have my decision classified as emotional. I have always made it clear that it was not just going to be about economics for me.
I think this vote is going to come down to "emotional" for most of us.... For me, it's an emotional attachment to democracy on a national level. And when we say it's about the ability to "throw the buggers out"... we are not tapping into our inner-ISIS!
Its the same for me. The British people must retain the democracy that was bought in blood in the last century and the centuries before. Self determination and the supremacy of parliament.
Given that only about 5% of EU laws and regulations need to be implemented in the EEA why do you think it would not be worth it? You haven't taken that into account that I can see.
I've no idea what these 'percentage of EU laws' figures which get bandied around are supposed to represent, so I ignore them. How do you measure laws? 200 pages of fire-extinguisher regulations vs twenty pages on immigration?
However, I have taken account of the areas where EU laws/regulations would no longer affect us - CAP, CFP, justice, social being the most important. I should probably have added environmental as well (I think - I'm not quite sure if the EEA option includes that or not).
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
I don't disregard it. I say that in the context of the whole report which strikes a very different tone from the one you are hoping to convey it is highly misleading. Much like many of the comments and statements you make in here.
If you're going to be an odious berk for the next four months, this is going to be a long referendum campaign. But so be it.
Given that you have been an odious berk for the last 4 years or more I think perhaps you might be being just a tad hypocritical.
On the assumption that we move to an EEA-style deal (which in market-access terms is much the same as the EU), that's probably true, except for the important provisos that 'the very short-term' is unlikely to be less than two years and may be several years, given the uncertainties of the Brexit process, and that the short-term hit may be quite severe.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
I got a black cab from Paddington yesterday. Nice driver, friendly, and he had a big sign saying CASH ONLY.
You might as well have a sign saying I ONLY ACCEPT CHEQUES, SIGNED WITH GOOSEQUILL PENS
I used four taxis today, all were paid in cash. Mind you, I don't have a credit or debit card... because almost no one accepts one I have rather grown used to a cash economy.
However, I have taken account of the areas where EU laws/regulations would no longer affect us - CAP, CFP, justice, social being the most important. I should probably have added environmental as well (I think - I'm not quite sure if the EEA option includes that or not).
The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies: common agriculture and fisheries policies (although the EEA Agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products); customs union; common trade policy; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs (the EEA EFTA States are however part of the Schengen area); direct and indirect taxation; or economic and monetary union.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
I got a black cab from Paddington yesterday. Nice driver, friendly, and he had a big sign saying CASH ONLY.
You might as well have a sign saying I ONLY ACCEPT CHEQUES, SIGNED WITH GOOSEQUILL PENS
I used four taxis today, all were paid in cash. Mind you, I don't have a credit or debit card... because almost no one accepts one I have rather grown used to a cash economy.
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
It allowed for a devaluation after going in at the wrong rate. I'm not sure that amounts to taking the shackles off. I don't think ended a semi-fixed exchange rate quite compares to leaving the EU either.
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
It's a bit more complicated than that, though. Germany struggled in the mid 1990s because of the absorption of East Germany.
And we boomed at least partly because we'd had such a terrible time in the 1990 to 1992 time period. People forget just how deep and unpleasant the early 1990s recession (coming on the back of the bursting of a massive property bubble) was.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Seems inarguable to me that London property prices would be hit, initially, as people are spooked. But then, if the £ fell by 20-30%, as some expect, that would make it more attractive to foreign investors. So, eventually, status quo ante?
I literally have no clue what to vote, and I grow more clueless by the day. It is impossible to predict what will happen, one way or another, So anyone who says they have decided to vote on the basis of economic analysis is lying, e.g. Richard Nabavi.
This vote will come down to emotions: gut instinct, patriotism, rebelliousness, versus herd instinct, risk aversion, dislike of opposition. e.g. you, Mister Meeks, seem to have plumped for REMAIN because there are too many homophobes voting LEAVE.
It is at least honest. I commend you on that.
The economic analysis is very simple.
There will be a near term hit.
Overall we will probably do slightly better outside the EU.
But it's all MOE stuff. We'll be fine, whatever way round it happens.
Yes, I think in the EEA we will take a short term hit but our trend growth will be slightly higher if we take advantage of being able to set our own terms of trade with non-EU nations. The UK is a huge consumer market and the fifth largest economy in the world, very few nations would turn down trading agreements with us. Possibly only China, Japan and the US. However, we could just continue to use WTO terms with these countries.
I got a black cab from Paddington yesterday. Nice driver, friendly, and he had a big sign saying CASH ONLY.
You might as well have a sign saying I ONLY ACCEPT CHEQUES, SIGNED WITH GOOSEQUILL PENS
I used four taxis today, all were paid in cash. Mind you, I don't have a credit or debit card... because almost no one accepts one I have rather grown used to a cash economy.
Cash? That's a bit like bitcoin, right?
Sort of... although that might be a bit inconvenient since my total monthly spending comes to slightly over 2 bitcoins
The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll.
Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static.
The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
There's an extremely good reason, which is the uncertainty.
Not all uncertainty is bad, having a clear out once every so often is economically sound. Look at how staid Japan has become over the last 20 years, or how poorly the economy grew under "no boom and bust" Brown.
Not all uncertainty is bad, having a clear out once every so often is economically sound. Look at how staid Japan has become over the last 20 years, or how poorly the economy grew under "no boom and bust" Brown.
Sure, but in the short-term (a couple of years or so) uncertainty about our access to the Single Market will paralyse investment.
Time for a magazine to offer a prize for the journalist who churns out the most ludicrous case for voting Remain.
Unsurprisingly, the BBC gave this story an airing as well. The best so far has to be Brexit and the UK wouldn't be able to win an 60k euro EU architecture prize, which last year was won by Norwegian...
'And we boomed at least partly because we'd had such a terrible time in the 1990 to 1992 time period. People forget just how deep and unpleasant the early 1990s recession (coming on the back of the bursting of a massive property bubble) was.'
That is true. And some of us argued at the time that the depressed state of the economy meant devaluation was quite likely to be successful.
But those of us old enough to remember the debates about sterling in 1992 will also recall that at the time, those opposed to us exiting the ERM ignored careful economic analysis and instead resorted to a lot of exaggerated rubbish about what devaluation would lead to - very high inflation, continued or even worsened balance of payments problems, collapsing business confidence etc etc.
Those people of course include some of the same people peddling scare stories now - John Major for example. These people simply cannot be trusted.
For a brief moment, ERM membership was as much an article of faith for the Europhile tendency as EU membership itself, and this led to appalling errors of judgement.
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
It allowed for a devaluation after going in at the wrong rate. I'm not sure that amounts to taking the shackles off. I don't think ended a semi-fixed exchange rate quite compares to leaving the EU either.
You can say that leaving the EU will also provide a devaluation of some magnitude.
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
It's a bit more complicated than that, though. Germany struggled in the mid 1990s because of the absorption of East Germany.
And we boomed at least partly because we'd had such a terrible time in the 1990 to 1992 time period. People forget just how deep and unpleasant the early 1990s recession (coming on the back of the bursting of a massive property bubble) was.
It's not just Germany though, we grew faster than France or other nations too. I just compared to Germany as it's the default. Though 1990 to 1992 was so terrible because we'd grown so fast in the 1980s too. To avoid the issues of Germany reunification lets compare to France.
GDP per capita: 1979 France $11,200.47 1979 United Kingdom $7,860.25 (70% of French GDP per capita)
1990 France $21,833.90 1990 United Kingdom $18,632.9 (85% of French GDP per capita)
1992 France $23,937.87 1992 United Kingdom $20,104.9 (84% of French GDP per capita)
1998 France $25,101.83 1998 United Kingdom $26,144.87 (104% of French GDP per capita)
Sure the 1990-92 period was bad but the period before and after it were better. Before our boost after the Black Wednesday shock the last time we were ahead of France was 1961. But after Black Wednesday we stayed ahead of the French until 2007 and are almost certainly ahead of them again already now.
I see the Tory surge has gone south ....... The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll. Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static. The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
What would be the minimum number of seats that SLAB must have to avoid another SLAB Leader change? (Assuming she gets in herself).
Not all uncertainty is bad, having a clear out once every so often is economically sound. Look at how staid Japan has become over the last 20 years, or how poorly the economy grew under "no boom and bust" Brown.
Sure, but in the short-term (a couple of years or so) uncertainty about our access to the Single Market will paralyse investment.
That sounds like an argument for throwing away a potentially prosperous future because of the fear of a couple of years of slightly stunted growth. Is your horizon really that close ?
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
I see the Tory surge has gone south ....... The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll. Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static. The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
What would be the minimum number of seats that SLAB must have to avoid another SLAB Leader change? (Assuming she gets in herself).
1
If she gets in herself and nobody else does then I can't see a change happening.
TNS are the third successive poll to show a decline in Tory support. As I mentioned in an earlier post the vastly overrated Ruth Davidson has defined success or failure in terms of coming second to the NATS. This looks increasingly foolhardy in the face of these polls and could be the effective end of her role in Scottish politics. She would the have to take her chances the on the high road or gravy train to the south!
The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll.
Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static.
The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
What would be the minimum number of seats that SLAB must have to avoid another SLAB Leader change? (Assuming she gets in herself).
I have no idea, they will certainly lose more , I assume if Sarwar gets a seat which is likely on list then he is super ambitious. Dugdale is pretty useless , her utterances are pathetic. Sarwar is most likely candidate and hard to see Dugdale lasting long or ever pulling them out of the mire.Really is new territory this time , it will test the system big time.
That sounds like an argument for throwing away a potentially prosperous future because of the fear of a couple of years of slightly stunted growth. Is your horizon really that close ?
I've already addressed the pros and cons below. As usual, anything I write on here which doesn't fit the preconceptions of the Leavers is ignored.
So, no, my horizon isn't that close. I'm just making a sober and dispassionate assessment, as best I can, of the pros and cons, costs and risks.
I think we might be making some progress. There does seem to be a grudging acknowledgement amongst those Leavers who are not completely purblind that there is likely to be a short-term economic hit.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Which treaties have been agreed elsewhere that you believe could be used as a template?
TNS are the third successive poll to show a decline in Tory support. As I mentioned in an earlier post the vastly overrated Ruth Davidson has defined success or failure in terms of coming second to the NATS. This looks increasingly foolhardy in the face of these polls and could be the effective end of her role in Scottish politics. She would the have to take her chances the on the high road or gravy train to the south!
She is not certain either despite jumping ship to Edinburgh to have a better chance of survival ( she was doomed in her own list seat ).
We are almost down to baldy men fighting over a comb territory
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Yes, and it is certainly true that the EEA/EFTA route (or something similar) is by far the most straightforward. Nonetheless it does involve multiple international treaties.
Bear in mind also that we don't know what the UK would want. We're assuming EEA, but that's an assumption, and it might well not be valid. The new government would need some time to figure out what it was actually going to be seeking.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Which treaties have been agreed elsewhere that you believe could be used as a template?
Do you seriously think we exist in a vacuum? Depending upon which route we go down with the EU we have the Norwegian option, the Swiss option and Canadian etc ones which have all been signed and/or signed and implemented and could be rushed through.
It would be in the interests of all to end uncertainty and that is the idea of the two year window, I have no doubt we could and would make and ratify an agreement within that window. Given the ratification process takes time that means the uncertainty would be over below that period.
I got a black cab from Paddington yesterday. Nice driver, friendly, and he had a big sign saying CASH ONLY.
You might as well have a sign saying I ONLY ACCEPT CHEQUES, SIGNED WITH GOOSEQUILL PENS
I used four taxis today, all were paid in cash. Mind you, I don't have a credit or debit card... because almost no one accepts one I have rather grown used to a cash economy.
TNS are the third successive poll to show a decline in Tory support. As I mentioned in an earlier post the vastly overrated Ruth Davidson has defined success or failure in terms of coming second to the NATS. This looks increasingly foolhardy in the face of these polls and could be the effective end of her role in Scottish politics. She would the have to take her chances the on the high road or gravy train to the south!
She is not certain either despite jumping ship to Edinburgh to have a better chance of survival ( she was doomed in her own list seat ).
We are almost down to baldy men fighting over a TURNIP territory
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Yes, and it is certainly true that the EEA/EFTA route (or something similar) is by far the most straightforward. Nonetheless it does involve multiple international treaties.
Bear in mind also that we don't know what the UK would want. We're assuming EEA, but that's an assumption, and it might well not be valid. The new government would need some time to figure out what it was actually going to be seeking.
If the Civil Service and government haven't gameplanned what we would seek in the event of a Leave vote then I'm a monkey's uncle. It would be terrible neglect.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
If the Civil Service and government haven't gameplanned what we would seek in the event of a Leave vote then I'm a monkey's uncle. It would be terrible neglect.
It's a hugely political decision. Do you shaft the voters who thought they were voting Leave to get 'control of our borders' or not? The civil service can't decide that, and the current government wouldn't be the one making the decision.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
Yes, we have discussed it before, but still you keep repeating the same rubbish. I've no idea why, since the full text of the agreement is available free of charge on the internet.
If the Civil Service and government haven't gameplanned what we would seek in the event of a Leave vote then I'm a monkey's uncle. It would be terrible neglect.
It's a hugely political decision. Do you shaft the voters who thought they were voting Leave to get 'control of our borders' or not? The civil service can't decide that, and the current government wouldn't be the one making the decision.
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
If the Civil Service and government haven't gameplanned what we would seek in the event of a Leave vote then I'm a monkey's uncle. It would be terrible neglect.
It's a hugely political decision. Do you shaft the voters who thought they were voting Leave to get 'control of our borders' or not? The civil service can't decide that, and the current government wouldn't be the one making the decision.
The current government is responsible for making plans for all likely eventualities. And yes, whilst Cameron himself might not be there as PM, unless there is GE - which is very unlikely - then the current ministers are indeed the ones ho are likely to be making the decisions.
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
It's not anything of the sort. I'm just being realistic about the timescales.
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
It's not anything of the sort. I'm just being realistic about the timescales.
The timescale is two years as Article 50 says. There is a reason that timescale was given in the Article.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Any proof for that claim or are you talking bollocks yet again?
The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll.
Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static.
The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
Survation On constituency SNP 54%, Labour 23%, Tories 18%, UKIP. On PR SNP 43%, Labour 19%, Tories 14%. Projection SNP 70 seats, Labour 21, Tories 16, Greens 9, UKIP 7, LDs 6.
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
It's not anything of the sort. I'm just being realistic about the timescales.
The timescale is two years as Article 50 says. There is a reason that timescale was given in the Article.
That's the default timescale before our EU membership falls away after we invoke Article 50 (unless extended by unanimous vote of all 28 countries). It's not a guarantee that a new deal would be in place by that time.
In practice, in the EEA route, I'd hope that a deal could be done that quickly, but I don't see it being done much more quickly from the date of a Leave decision in the referendum.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Any proof for that claim or are you talking bollocks yet again?
Look it up yourself. We've discussed this zillions of times.
To answer @MarqueeMark's question, no I don't see any homophobic element to the Leave campaign. My concerns are about xenophobia, protectionism and a wider feeling that Leave is about pulling up the drawbridge and retreating from a complicated world with difficult choices.
I would be quite happy to have my decision classified as emotional. I have always made it clear that it was not just going to be about economics for me.
That's fair enough. It's certainly about far more than economics to me (I don't see how the economic arguments can be decisive either way).
I favour out for reasons of self-government and accountability on the part of those who rule us. Also, I think that what most British people want from the EU (a trading relationship) is incompatible with what most continental voters want, outside of Scandinavia and parts Of Eastern Europe (full political union).
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Which treaties have been agreed elsewhere that you believe could be used as a template?
Do you seriously think we exist in a vacuum? Depending upon which route we go down with the EU we have the Norwegian option, the Swiss option and Canadian etc ones which have all been signed and/or signed and implemented and could be rushed through.
It would be in the interests of all to end uncertainty and that is the idea of the two year window, I have no doubt we could and would make and ratify an agreement within that window. Given the ratification process takes time that means the uncertainty would be over below that period.
Given that none of the options you list provide all the desired terms for Leavers, you seem amazingly optimistic that agreement will be rapidly reached. The time taken is less in the drafting and more in the negotiation.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of the UK to provide negotiators to cut through to the issues. Now, I appreciate that your attitude may have been influenced by seeing how the PM got nowhere in his negotiations - and extrapolating that the UK generally is woeful at making progress. But in my professional experience, the UK has some outstanding commercial negotiators. By my reckoning, they would rank third, behind the Azeris and the Algerians (and they both had the advantage of playing with a marked deck...).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
No we certainly wouldn't. The complexity is absolutely gob-smacking. And this is the EU we're dealing with. You know, the corpse. Leavers seem to expect it to spring magically into life and become RoboEU.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
You are not operating in a total vacuum. Treaties have been agreed elsewhere that could be used as a template.
Which treaties have been agreed elsewhere that you believe could be used as a template?
Say South Korea. Th EU's 9th largest trading partner. Hardly Nauru....
Wiki: "In 2010, the EU and Korea signed a new framework agreement and a free trade agreement (FTA) which is the EU's first FTA with an Asian country and removes virtually all tariffs and many non-tariff barriers. On the basis of this, the EU and Korea decided in October 2010 to upgrade their relationship to a Strategic Partnership." Agreements in force by the end of 2011.
By now, we should have some fair understanding of where that works, and where it doesn't. Any reason why we shouldn't have a similar Strategic Partnership?
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and study or work in another country then presumably individuals in that country should also have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to allow in people who want to study or work in their country.
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.
Comments
Personally, with all the powers in our hands, I think in the long-term the potential is there for us to make a fantastic economic success story out of a global UK, particularly as the world changes massively over the next 30-35 years and Europe is eclipsed.
To the extent that there are people who would like to throw him off a tall building, it has probably nothing to do with his sexuality, but rather more about his recent posting history...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/trip_record_data.shtml
(For IT types, especially coders, there is an interesting article describing an open-source effort to analyse all this data - code is available on GitHub!)
http://toddwschneider.com/posts/analyzing-1-1-billion-nyc-taxi-and-uber-trips-with-a-vengeance/
If they ever open up Heathrow to Uber that would change.
I suppose you could push the decapitated corpse off a tall building, but that seems a little gratuitous.
Yes there are downsides, the City will have fewer "protections" from EU meddling in terms of trade with them as we wouldn't get much say in the rule making process. Initially there might be some economic downside. Food prices might rise once we leave the CAP/CFP area, at least until we begin developing trade ties with other nations on the open market. Energy prices may rise given that we import a fair bit of it from France, but if we're in the EEA it shouldn't.
Genuine question: do you really feel there is a homophobic element to the Leave campaign? Being straight, I might not pick up on the subtleties, but I can honestly say I have seen nothing that would trigger any alarms with me on that front. If there were, I would certainly be calling people out and fighting the good fight with you.
http://toddwschneider.com/data/taxi/uber_vs_taxi_pickups_queens.png
What they will have done is made some sensible (based upon what we know now) assumptions on what we'd do and how they'd be used, and projected the numbers forwards, with a few alternate scenarios, and caveated it accordingly in the conclusions. The MoE will be huge.
The basis of my argument is that with full trade and regulatory powers repatriated we'd be far faster and more flexible in responding to changing world circumstances, both in striking trade deals and in responding to changing global trade patterns, as the global economy evolves over the next 35 years.
To answer @MarqueeMark's question, no I don't see any homophobic element to the Leave campaign. My concerns are about xenophobia, protectionism and a wider feeling that Leave is about pulling up the drawbridge and retreating from a complicated world with difficult choices.
I would be quite happy to have my decision classified as emotional. I have always made it clear that it was not just going to be about economics for me.
You upgraded from Mosaic then ?
Anyone who doesn't take credit cards in 2016 deserves to be out of business.
Has Corbyn actually bought a suit (although clearly not a tie yet)
He must have taken Cameron's Mum's advice to heart
It might be the case that the hit would comprise deferred rather than permanently-lost growth (through investment delayed but not lost), but it's very hard to be confident of that. A lot would depend on how quickly and smoothly we could agree a new deal.
It might also be the case that the EEA option would be better (in economic terms) in the long-term, because of the famous free-trade agreements. I'm sceptical that there's much juice in that, though.
It might also be the case, as some claim, that the City would do better in that scenario. That would depend on whether the Eurozone takes advantage our lack of a say in regulation and our lack of institutional protection in the EEA option, balanced against whether we could take more advantage of non-EU-regulated business.
Ultimately it comes down to assessing those risks, together with an assessment of the political benefits of the EEA option (CAP, CFP, justice, social) vs the disbenefits (lack of any say in how the EU and Single Market develops, outcry when voters realise they've been conned over immigration).
My judgement is that it's not worth the candle, but others on the same facts will give different weights to the argument.
There will be a near term hit.
Overall we will probably do slightly better outside the EU.
But it's all MOE stuff. We'll be fine, whatever way round it happens.
However, I have taken account of the areas where EU laws/regulations would no longer affect us - CAP, CFP, justice, social being the most important. I should probably have added environmental as well (I think - I'm not quite sure if the EEA option includes that or not).
Have some faith, man. If we did take the plunge and left the EU, we would get perfectly acceptable commercial trading arrangements, probably in months.
Two years absolute minimum, and probably considerably longer, with an uncertain outcome given that we may need 27- or even 30-country unanimity (this is unclear, it might be QMV). EEA/EFTA membership itself is not automatic. You don't just fill in a form on the website.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong.
Germany growth rate:
1991 5.1
1992 1.9
1993 -1.0
1994 2.5
1995 1.7
United Kingdom growth rate
1991 -1.2
1992 0.4
1993 2.6
1994 4.0
1995 4.9
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
And we boomed at least partly because we'd had such a terrible time in the 1990 to 1992 time period. People forget just how deep and unpleasant the early 1990s recession (coming on the back of the bursting of a massive property bubble) was.
The Scottish National party has a 39 point poll lead over the Labour party in the race to form the next Scottish government, according to the latest opinion poll.
Pollsters TNS found the SNP’s constituency vote share at Holyrood was 60 per cent (up three), compared to Labour’s second-placed 21 per cent, which was static.
The Tories were in third on 13 per cent, down four, and the Liberals a distant fourth with 4 per cent.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/01/axel-scheffler-gruffalo-wouldnt-exist-without-uk-eu-brexit
Time for a magazine to offer a prize for the journalist who churns out the most ludicrous case for voting Remain.
Midnight GMT
Georgia, Vermont, Virginia.
Alaska caucus begins.
1 AM GMT
Alabama, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, most of Texas.
Minnesota caucus begins.
1:30 AM GMT
Arkansas.
2 AM GMT
Rest of Texas.
That is true. And some of us argued at the time that the depressed state of the economy meant devaluation was quite likely to be successful.
But those of us old enough to remember the debates about sterling in 1992 will also recall that at the time, those opposed to us exiting the ERM ignored careful economic analysis and instead resorted to a lot of exaggerated rubbish about what devaluation would lead to - very high inflation, continued or even worsened balance of payments problems, collapsing business confidence etc etc.
Those people of course include some of the same people peddling scare stories now - John Major for example. These people simply cannot be trusted.
For a brief moment, ERM membership was as much an article of faith for the Europhile tendency as EU membership itself, and this led to appalling errors of judgement.
You need to visit: rentaminority.com
GDP per capita:
1979 France $11,200.47
1979 United Kingdom $7,860.25 (70% of French GDP per capita)
1990 France $21,833.90
1990 United Kingdom $18,632.9 (85% of French GDP per capita)
1992 France $23,937.87
1992 United Kingdom $20,104.9 (84% of French GDP per capita)
1998 France $25,101.83
1998 United Kingdom $26,144.87 (104% of French GDP per capita)
Sure the 1990-92 period was bad but the period before and after it were better. Before our boost after the Black Wednesday shock the last time we were ahead of France was 1961. But after Black Wednesday we stayed ahead of the French until 2007 and are almost certainly ahead of them again already now.
The notion shocks are automatically bad is fake.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/704711996655149059
If she gets in herself and nobody else does then I can't see a change happening.
So, no, my horizon isn't that close. I'm just making a sober and dispassionate assessment, as best I can, of the pros and cons, costs and risks.
I think we might be making some progress. There does seem to be a grudging acknowledgement amongst those Leavers who are not completely purblind that there is likely to be a short-term economic hit.
We are almost down to baldy men fighting over a comb territory
Bear in mind also that we don't know what the UK would want. We're assuming EEA, but that's an assumption, and it might well not be valid. The new government would need some time to figure out what it was actually going to be seeking.
Clinton 52
Trump 44
Clinton 48
Cruz 49
Clinton 47
Rubio 50
Sanders 55
Trump 43
Sanders 57
Cruz 40
Sanders 53
Rubio 45
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/
It would be in the interests of all to end uncertainty and that is the idea of the two year window, I have no doubt we could and would make and ratify an agreement within that window. Given the ratification process takes time that means the uncertainty would be over below that period.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
On any indyref 2 No 53% Yes 47%
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/ukip-course-scottish-breakthrough-snp-continues-soar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc2nN9OguQ
In practice, in the EEA route, I'd hope that a deal could be done that quickly, but I don't see it being done much more quickly from the date of a Leave decision in the referendum.
I favour out for reasons of self-government and accountability on the part of those who rule us. Also, I think that what most British people want from the EU (a trading relationship) is incompatible with what most continental voters want, outside of Scandinavia and parts Of Eastern Europe (full political union).
Wiki: "In 2010, the EU and Korea signed a new framework agreement and a free trade agreement (FTA) which is the EU's first FTA with an Asian country and removes virtually all tariffs and many non-tariff barriers. On the basis of this, the EU and Korea decided in October 2010 to upgrade their relationship to a Strategic Partnership." Agreements in force by the end of 2011.
By now, we should have some fair understanding of where that works, and where it doesn't. Any reason why we shouldn't have a similar Strategic Partnership?
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.