We organise conferences as part of our business. We are doing a big one in Spain in June. It is to all intents and purposes like organising one in the UK. Go to North America and Asia, as we also do, and it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Likewise, we could set up an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow, try doing the same elsewhere in the world (Hong Kong excepted). That's the freedom I am talking about.
Yes, so you will vote Remain, because it suits your circumstances, others will vote Leave because it suits theirs. No one is ever going to convince you given what you have said, of the merits of Leave so it all becomes a bit pointless. It would however be foolish to suggest that other people voting to support their view of how things will turn out for their interests is any more or less valid that your view of how it will affect yours.
I was asked about how restrictions on free movement would affect me. I replied. I actually have no problem with EFTA/EEA membership. It's the idea we will pull out and negotiate a whole new deal that scares the pants off me. We are not in a position to retain free movement of goods, services and capital, while also demanding significant restrictions on free movement of people. That means in order to get the latter restricted we are going to have to give way on some of the former being restricted too. And no government we are likely to elect is going to do that.
So the European Court of Justice has ruled refugees can move to any EU state?? Does that include UK even though we are outside EU immigration policy?? Also, don't this ruin the quota policy as any migrants assigned to Slovakia can move straight back to Germany??
No it absolutely hasn't. It's ruled they can move within the EU state unless there are special circumstances. Eg a refugee with right to remain in Germany can move between Berlin and Frankfurt. Not that they can move to London.
It means that Germany can't have refugee centres to keep them all in the same place though, it will make it very hard to keep track of them.
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
Exactly. I'm sure that if we vote Leave, we have lots of hard, detailed, work of negotiation ahead of us, but so be it.
I see Mr Meeks is continuing to specialize in provocative click bait articles rather than any form of deep analysis.
The trade deals he highlights were negotiated from scratch to create new trading rules and terms. Most of the deals required post-Brexit will be a reformulation of existing rules and terms simply to acknowledge the UK's new status outside the EU.
You are correct in all points. Anyone familiar with international contracts with other governments knows that it all moves much quicker when there are existing arrangements in place which just need to be confirmed, amended or deleted. I fully understand that Mr Meeks may not have experience in that line of work.
So, what are you saying - that it is down to other European leaders blocking such a trade deals? Why? And if so - why in the name of feck would you want to be chained together with such people?
All I'm saying is that any deal will be done either by QMV, or by unanimity (it's slightly unclear which), plus of course requiring the consent of the four EFTA nations if we want to use EFTA as the framework. Obviously that might take quite a long time. The more bespoke the deal is compared with the EEA agreement, the more likely it is to take a long time.
In the meantime, and if it looked as though it was going to take longer than the 2-year Article 50 exit process, we'd (hopefully!) agree some kind of interim deal, to allow trade to continue with minimum disruption. That would be highly desirable, but obviously would take some of the urgency out of getting a final deal.
As I said upthread, I think the key parameter to focus on is not the length of time to finalise the legalities, but the length of time of business uncertainty about the nature of the final deal.
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
I see Mr Meeks is continuing to specialize in provocative click bait articles rather than any form of deep analysis.
The trade deals he highlights were negotiated from scratch to create new trading rules and terms. Most of the deals required post-Brexit will be a reformulation of existing rules and terms simply to acknowledge the UK's new status outside the EU.
You are correct in all points. Anyone familiar with international contracts with other governments knows that it all moves much quicker when there are existing arrangements in place which just need to be confirmed, amended or deleted. I fully understand that Mr Meeks may not have experience in that line of work.
If true then he shouldn't write spurious articles on things he has no working knowledge of.
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If the Eurocrats want certainty in their dealings with us, they will rapidly make a deal. Or else, people might see that the Earth doesn't stop spinning without a trade deal and think "what was all the fuss about?" And that would NEVER do in the Eurocrat mentality. I mean, people might query their WORTH! Heavens to Betsy....
Actually the Eurocrats will want a quick deal. Brexit, if it happens, is going to be a massive distraction, as well as economically disruptive.
However, it's not the Eurocrats who get to decide.
So, what are you saying - that it is down to other European leaders blocking such a trade deals? Why? And if so - why in the name of feck would you want to be chained together with such people?
There is an 80/20 rule in this. Focusing on the matters that represent 80% of our exports and get those deals done or re-confirmed and then if there is some matters that timbuctuvia will not agree work out alternative support and mechanisms to compensate etc. We also have billions we can shift in from the overseas aid budget to grease the palms of the timbuctuvias that need help with a new white elephant HQ near their current President. Some call it RealPolitik.
I see Mr Meeks is continuing to specialize in provocative click bait articles rather than any form of deep analysis.
The trade deals he highlights were negotiated from scratch to create new trading rules and terms. Most of the deals required post-Brexit will be a reformulation of existing rules and terms simply to acknowledge the UK's new status outside the EU.
You are correct in all points. Anyone familiar with international contracts with other governments knows that it all moves much quicker when there are existing arrangements in place which just need to be confirmed, amended or deleted. I fully understand that Mr Meeks may not have experience in that line of work.
If true then he shouldn't write spurious articles on things he has no working knowledge of.
Slight flaw in that argument is that we won't want the same terms as before - if we want to restrict migration that will be a change beyond the standard EEA deal...
I see Mr Meeks is continuing to specialize in provocative click bait articles rather than any form of deep analysis.
The trade deals he highlights were negotiated from scratch to create new trading rules and terms. Most of the deals required post-Brexit will be a reformulation of existing rules and terms simply to acknowledge the UK's new status outside the EU.
You are correct in all points. Anyone familiar with international contracts with other governments knows that it all moves much quicker when there are existing arrangements in place which just need to be confirmed, amended or deleted. I fully understand that Mr Meeks may not have experience in that line of work.
If true then he shouldn't write spurious articles on things he has no working knowledge of.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. King James Bible
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
Exactly. I'm sure that if we vote Leave, we have lots of hard, detailed, work of negotiation ahead of us, but so be it.
It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.
So the European Court of Justice has ruled refugees can move to any EU state?? Does that include UK even though we are outside EU immigration policy?? Also, don't this ruin the quota policy as any migrants assigned to Slovakia can move straight back to Germany??
No it absolutely hasn't. It's ruled they can move within the EU state unless there are special circumstances. Eg a refugee with right to remain in Germany can move between Berlin and Frankfurt. Not that they can move to London.
It means that Germany can't have refugee centres to keep them all in the same place though, it will make it very hard to keep track of them.
They have already lost 130k & no details on about 400k in total....
@gabyhinsliff: Two posh ladies in Winchester cafe:'I DO like David Cameron. He knows exactly how to behave'*pause*'but he's ballsed up Europe frightfully'
If you want Political Union, that is fine, you can vote for it and know you will get what you want. Otherwise, caveat emptor.
Interesting theory from Hugo Rifkind @hugorifkind: I wonder how much British Euroscepticism springs from our timeless, heroic nostalgia for WW2. @hugorifkind: As in, most of the EU regards that period as the worst period there ever was. Whereas, in our culture, it's sort of the best. @hugorifkind: So, no wonder we place less value on an institution designed to prevent it ever happening again.
Were we the only EU country to come out of WW2 with any credit whilst the rest had various forms of shame?
I don't think its pride or shame, but more lesson on how to stop it happening again. Most of EU too lesson as "never fall out with your neighbours" while we took lesson as "always be robust in defence of our democracy and liberties".
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
'It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.'
David - nicely put as always.
But I think it is not themselves the Remainers are kidding. Rather they are trying to kid the public.
If the Eurocrats want certainty in their dealings with us, they will rapidly make a deal. Or else, people might see that the Earth doesn't stop spinning without a trade deal and think "what was all the fuss about?" And that would NEVER do in the Eurocrat mentality. I mean, people might query their WORTH! Heavens to Betsy....
Actually the Eurocrats will want a quick deal. Brexit, if it happens, is going to be a massive distraction, as well as economically disruptive.
However, it's not the Eurocrats who get to decide.
So, what are you saying - that it is down to other European leaders blocking such a trade deals? Why? And if so - why in the name of feck would you want to be chained together with such people?
Oh really .... We are all chained to fellow members of the public who want to vote Labour. Hilary Benn is chained to people who voted for Corbyn. Tories are chained Peter Bone who happily applauds Galloway. Carswell is chained to Farage. Admittedly that is self immolation.
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
Exactly. I'm sure that if we vote Leave, we have lots of hard, detailed, work of negotiation ahead of us, but so be it.
It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.
That's it. I think that most continental politicians want an endgame that is incompatible with that which most British people want.
Were we the only EU country to come out of WW2 with any credit whilst the rest had various forms of shame?
Certainly one of the few to come out of it without any close combat within our borders, which does colour our perspective I think.
I must be mistaken to recall the bomb craters, bomb shelters, dislocated families etc etc from my childhood. The massive sacrifices our forbears made to help the oppressed in Europe from the dictatorships, in a fight that was all about us standing up for democracy and the right to each nation's sovereignty. A fight that we could have chosen to say "we do not owe them any favours, why spend blood and treasure on their sovereignty?".
'It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.'
David - nicely put as always.
But I think it is not themselves the Remainers are kidding. Rather they are trying to kid the public.
Leave or Remain, should really have been termed as Out or Further In. Because that's the eventual outcome of staying.
After Nevada I had Trump's chances at 90% for him to get the nomination. No longer, after S.Tuesday I have to downgrade them to 50%, with Cruz at 25% and 25% for a convention.
The result for Trump although impressive on paper, lacks depth: 1. He only won 7 while he was expected to win 10. 2. And from those 7 he won 3 by very small margins. 3. He underperformed the polls by 5 points 4. His underwhelming performance boosted the morale of his enemies. 5. Fox News will try to kill him at the debate tomorrow 6.The schedule is not in Trumps favour, he is on course to lose the majority of caucuses and primaries from now till March 15th.
Trump has to survive the Fox News debate but I don't give him high chances.
He has to survive the attacks from the establishment and far right factions, instead of accepting the front runner as usual at this point in the campaigns they show no signs of that. Now they will be more ferocious and organized and I give him some chances of surviving that.
But on Saturday Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine vote, only republicans can vote in those so no independents for Trump, and only Louisiana is a primary, and only Maine is safe territory for him. Cruz can win all the others and Trump only Maine.
That on top of Fox News killing Trump on the debate will be extremely damaging for Trump.
I gave Trump 90% chances on the assumption that the party will see the writing on the wall after Nevada and give up, it didn't. And that Trump will sweep S.Tuesday, he didn't. This is his most dangerous moment since losing Iowa.
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
So we leave the club that we want to remain a part of because we prefer to have no say whatsoever in its rules?
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
That'll be March 15, unless he wins Florida. Is there any formal mechanism by which (say) Kasich could withdraw in Florida and Rubio in Ohio? Or would they have to appeal directly to their voters to switch?
After Nevada I had Trump's chances at 90% for him to get the nomination. No longer, after S.Tuesday I have to downgrade them to 50%, with Cruz at 25% and 25% for a convention.
The result for Trump although impressive on paper, lacks depth: 1. He only won 7 while he was expected to win 10. 2. And from those 7 he won 3 by very small margins. 3. He underperformed the polls by 5 points 4. His underwhelming performance boosted the morale of his enemies. 5. Fox News will try to kill him at the debate tomorrow 6.The schedule is not in Trumps favour, he is on course to lose the majority of caucuses and primaries from now till March 15th.
Trump has to survive the Fox News debate but I don't give him high chances.
He has to survive the attacks from the establishment and far right factions, instead of accepting the front runner as usual at this point in the campaigns they show no signs of that. Now they will be more ferocious and organized and I give him some chances of surviving that.
But on Saturday Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine vote, only republicans can vote in those so no independents for Trump, and only Louisiana is a primary, and only Maine is safe territory for him. Cruz can win all the others and Trump only Maine.
That on top of Fox News killing Trump on the debate will be extremely damaging for Trump.
I gave Trump 90% chances on the assumption that the party will see the writing on the wall after Nevada and give up, it didn't. And that Trump will sweep S.Tuesday, he didn't. This is his most dangerous moment since losing Iowa.
What odds do you make various parties in the convention 25% ?
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
Exactly. I'm sure that if we vote Leave, we have lots of hard, detailed, work of negotiation ahead of us, but so be it.
It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.
That's it. I think that most continental politicians want an endgame that is incompatible with that which most British people want.
It's quite clear to me that a decisive Remain vote by the UK will be taken, both on the continent, and domestically here amongst our establishment politicians, as a reaffirmation of the UK's commitment to the European project, and rekindle europhilia as a UK political force.
In the medium-long term, it's extremely dangerous for our national interest.
So we have had V2, bomb craters and the Battle of Britain.
There were no foreign troops marching down Whitehall which was my point.
I didn't say we were not in the war. affected by the war, I said "different perspective" on the war. No close combat. No foreign troops invaded us, which makes us almost unique as a European nation.
'It's all about the end game. Are we content to eventually slide into the Euro and cease to be a nation state or do we wish to remain one? The illusion is that we can have the best of both worlds as Hammond put it this morning. It's just not true. It's not even rational. We are either in or we are out. Choose as you wish but remain needs to stop kidding themselves.'
David - nicely put as always.
But I think it is not themselves the Remainers are kidding. Rather they are trying to kid the public.
Totally agree with both of you.
The nonsense I'm reading on here is extraordinary, some are suggesting if Brexit occurs the channel tunnel will be concreted.
I don't care if it takes 10 minutes or ten years to Leave, its becoming clearer by the day the EU needs us more than we need them.
So the EU really is the Hotel California. We can check out any time we like (article 50) but we can never leave.
Let's just think this through for a moment. The EU is developing in a way not necessarily to our advantage. The EZ is going to integrate and our votes and opinions are going to become increasingly irrelevant. It is highly likely the rules of the club will evolve in ways that damage our interests.
To quote another song (Lord, I am turning into TSE) if not now, when? Do we wait for it to get worse or do we go now? If it were done t'were well to be done quickly. (That's enough quotes. Ed)
So we leave the club that we want to remain a part of because we prefer to have no say whatsoever in its rules?
Have I got that right?
We won't have any say in the rules when EZ integrates anyway. Question is whether we want those rules to apply just to 8% of economy we export to EU or to entire 100%.
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
So we have had V2, bomb craters and the Battle of Britain. There were no foreign troops marching down Whitehall which was my point. I didn't say we were not in the war. affected by the war, I said "different perspective" on the war. No close combat. No foreign troops invaded us, which makes us almost unique as a European nation.
1. We chose to fight although not directly threatened. (Principles) 2. We did not surrender. (Achievement). 3. We won. (Pride).
Reading god help me many of the EU directives, it's quite clear that if we do leave, it will be referred to by them as the EU permitting, as a special circumstance, the UK to maintain a temporary right to non-membership, under Protocol 100, which right can be terminated at any stage.
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
All those Russians buying property across the EU must be a mirage.
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
No, I am not.
Well whats this bollox about "my right to settle where I wish" then?
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
So we have had V2, bomb craters and the Battle of Britain.
There were no foreign troops marching down Whitehall which was my point.
I didn't say we were not in the war. affected by the war, I said "different perspective" on the war. No close combat. No foreign troops invaded us, which makes us almost unique as a European nation.
I think 'no guilt' is the biggest differentiator compared with many European countries.
I don't know about the other examples set out above, but the 8 years 5 months for South Korea - the EU's 9th largest trading partner - looks highly suspect.
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
There have of course been a lot of British people who have lost their property in Spain due to the failure of Spanish law to protect them. Being in the EU has not stopped that.
I see that "this time it's different" is very popular with Leavers. So let's look at the differences.
1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner.
2) Those negotiating on the other side have not begun to think in detail about what exit terms they are ready to offer or their negotiating stance.
3) Any deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations.
4) The negotiations would be taking place in unusually hostile circumstances: most such negotiations take place with the two sides having a broadly common aim.
5) The negotiations would be taking place against a backdrop of intense domestic political concerns in all EU member states.
None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
1. We chose to fight although not directly threatened. (Principles) 2. We did not surrender. (Achievement). 3. We won. (Pride).
All of which would back up Hugo's theory.
We don't like the EU because we think we are better than it...
I think that the fundamental point is that arguments which make excellent sense in much of the Continent, about the EU being essential to prevent war and promote democracy, have no resonance here. Our democracy predates the EU, and we were victorious in both world wars.
That'll be March 15, unless he wins Florida. Is there any formal mechanism by which (say) Kasich could withdraw in Florida and Rubio in Ohio? Or would they have to appeal directly to their voters to switch?
John Kasich has turned into Trump's dream candidate. 2nd in NH denied Rubio there, and his presence in VA most likely cost Rubio there as well.
Him and Ben "Bedblocker" Carson (Who is less likely than the reincarnated love child of Elvis and Jesus to win the nomination at this point) probably cost Rubio the 20% threshold in Texas too xD
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
I can think of one or two on here,can you.
Similar to the defeatist attitude of "managing decline" that our ruling elites had in the 1970s. Until Thatcher came along.
Just heard on BBC that the EU has decided to divert overseas aid to its own countries to help with the migration crisis.
They're rapidly losing control of the situation. It's only a matter of time before someone opens fire.
Sadly it is, the scenes in Macedonia are just the start.
This is the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all, if you want to Leave and have immigration concerns you're a racist. Totally ignoring the EU has immigration concerns.
Meeks/Nabavi/TSE can warble on about EEA,ECJ, EFTA yadda yadda all they like, but they don't edit the news that millions watch.
Is moving me back to Remain. Brexit is just too much of a risk.
Life is a risk. Deciding to Leave or Remain shouldn't be based upon administrative inconvenience.
So which of the personal and business freedoms I currently enjoy do you think I should be prepared to risk?
I think you need to decide whether you think that EU membership is, on balance, a positive thing for this country, or a negative thing. If you conclude the former, vote Remain. If you conclude the latter, vote Leave.
A lawyer's answer :-). You want me to risk - even give up - freedoms I currently enjoy. The emphasis is kind of you to explain why.
I've given my views, here and elsewhere, as to why I think we should leave on plenty of occasions. Accept or reject them as you like. I really can't tell you what freedoms you should risk. I don't know you, I don't know what matters to you. I don't consider that I am risking any freedom that I consider to be important (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to own property, freedom of contract) by voting Leave.
Fair enough. I also treasure freedom of movement. I don't see my freedom of speech at risk by being an EU member state. I do see my freedom of movement being at risk if we pull out.
Why would your freedom of movement be limited?
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
My freedom to move goods and services around the EU, as well as capital. And my right to settle where I wish.
I really don't know why you keep making things up. If we leave the EU and you turn up in Benidorm with a case full of money are you seriously suggesting they're going to turn you away?
There have of course been a lot of British people who have lost their property in Spain due to the failure of Spanish law to protect them. Being in the EU has not stopped that.
I see that "this time it's different" is very popular with Leavers. So let's look at the differences.
1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner.
2) Those negotiating on the other side have not begun to think in detail about what exit terms they are ready to offer or their negotiating stance.
3) Any deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations.
4) The negotiations would be taking place in unusually hostile circumstances: most such negotiations take place with the two sides having a broadly common aim.
5) The negotiations would be taking place against a backdrop of intense domestic political concerns in all EU member states.
None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
The points you make are all fair ones to make. The drift to sneering accusations of lack of patriotism by Leavers speaks volumes. Still it makes a change from whipped up hysteria over the Syrian migration crisis.
Just heard on BBC that the EU has decided to divert overseas aid to its own countries to help with the migration crisis.
They're rapidly losing control of the situation. It's only a matter of time before someone opens fire.
Sadly it is, the scenes in Macedonia are just the start.
This is the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all, if you want to Leave and have immigration concerns you're a racist. Totally ignoring the EU has immigration concerns.
Meeks/Nabavi/TSE can warble on about EEA,ECJ, EFTA yadda yadda all they like, but they don't edit the news that millions watch.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Just heard on BBC that the EU has decided to divert overseas aid to its own countries to help with the migration crisis.
They're rapidly losing control of the situation. It's only a matter of time before someone opens fire.
Sadly it is, the scenes in Macedonia are just the start.
This is the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all, if you want to Leave and have immigration concerns you're a racist. Totally ignoring the EU has immigration concerns.
Meeks/Nabavi/TSE can warble on about EEA,ECJ, EFTA yadda yadda all they like, but they don't edit the news that millions watch.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
There doesn't seem to be much defending going on at the moment. Many borders appear close to collapsing.
I don't know about the other examples set out above, but the 8 years 5 months for South Korea - the EU's 9th largest trading partner - looks highly suspect.
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
Just heard on BBC that the EU has decided to divert overseas aid to its own countries to help with the migration crisis.
They're rapidly losing control of the situation. It's only a matter of time before someone opens fire.
Sadly it is, the scenes in Macedonia are just the start.
This is the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all, if you want to Leave and have immigration concerns you're a racist. Totally ignoring the EU has immigration concerns.
Meeks/Nabavi/TSE can warble on about EEA,ECJ, EFTA yadda yadda all they like, but they don't edit the news that millions watch.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Mmmmmh, that's a hornet's nest. Schengen in it's naivety suggests some don't share those concerns.
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
I can think of one or two on here,can you.
My argument is why give up what we have when the world is there for the taking anyway. There are many other EU member states that do much better than the UK in non-EU markets. Our trade failures in the world are largely down to us, not down to the EU.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
Reading god help me many of the EU directives, it's quite clear that if we do leave, it will be referred to by them as the EU permitting, as a special circumstance, the UK to maintain a temporary right to non-membership, under Protocol 100, which right can be terminated at any stage.
Afternoon all. In case it's easier to look at here, here's a link to the full table:............1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner. ....None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
Mr Meeks, any form of negotiations has to be set against the backdrop of who has most to gain and lose. In these international negotiations the larger trading partners within the EU rely on us to buy more of their goods than the figure we have to sell to them. Can Germany afford disruption in one of its biggest european purchasers of its goods at this time of economic low/no growth? The answer is no and that applies to the key EU countries. Because of this and other factors, deals can be done and we have cash and influence that can lubricate the process. We are no longer the sick man of Europe that we were in the 1970s.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
I'm confident that voters are far more concerned with tv pictures than your disingenuous and tedious claims about trade, correct.
And please elaborate what is "dishonest", in relation to Leave, about TV pictures?
Afternoon all. In case it's easier to look at here, here's a link to the full table:............1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner. ....None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
Mr Meeks, any form of negotiations has to be set against the backdrop of who has most to gain and lose. In these international negotiations the larger trading partners within the EU rely on us to buy more of their goods than the figure we have to sell to them. Can Germany afford disruption in one of its biggest european purchasers of its goods at this time of economic low/no growth? The answer is no and that applies to the key EU countries. Because of this and other factors, deals can be done and we have cash and influence that can lubricate the process. We are no longer the sick man of Europe that we were in the 1970s.
Britain, being proportionately more dependent on trade with the EU than the EU is on trade with the UK, is in no position to set down preconditions. Moreover, different EU states have different interests and each has a veto.
After Nevada I had Trump's chances at 90% for him to get the nomination. No longer, after S.Tuesday I have to downgrade them to 50%, with Cruz at 25% and 25% for a convention.
The result for Trump although impressive on paper, lacks depth: 1. He only won 7 while he was expected to win 10. 2. And from those 7 he won 3 by very small margins. 3. He underperformed the polls by 5 points 4. His underwhelming performance boosted the morale of his enemies. 5. Fox News will try to kill him at the debate tomorrow 6.The schedule is not in Trumps favour, he is on course to lose the majority of caucuses and primaries from now till March 15th.
Trump has to survive the Fox News debate but I don't give him high chances.
He has to survive the attacks from the establishment and far right factions, instead of accepting the front runner as usual at this point in the campaigns they show no signs of that. Now they will be more ferocious and organized and I give him some chances of surviving that.
But on Saturday Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine vote, only republicans can vote in those so no independents for Trump, and only Louisiana is a primary, and only Maine is safe territory for him. Cruz can win all the others and Trump only Maine.
That on top of Fox News killing Trump on the debate will be extremely damaging for Trump.
I gave Trump 90% chances on the assumption that the party will see the writing on the wall after Nevada and give up, it didn't. And that Trump will sweep S.Tuesday, he didn't. This is his most dangerous moment since losing Iowa.
What odds do you make various parties in the convention 25% ?
Romney or Ryan, 100% odds for them in a convention. And the GOP will have 1968 type riots in their convention, Trump will run as an independent on some states and tell his supporters to kick the GOP any way they can like voting against Senators and Representatives. The Establishment would win at the cost of demolishing the GOP and denouncing their own voters, at the extremes they might end up like the LD at least temporarily.
The democrats would gain massive majorities in the Senate and the House if Trump's 30% votes against the GOP, I estimate the republicans losing 15 Senate seats and 100 House seats. The impact in the House will be bigger since they are all up for re-election this year.
Basically they would be blowing the GOP up rather than surrendering it to an outsider.
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
That'll be March 15, unless he wins Florida. Is there any formal mechanism by which (say) Kasich could withdraw in Florida and Rubio in Ohio? Or would they have to appeal directly to their voters to switch?
John Kasich has turned into Trump's dream candidate. 2nd in NH denied Rubio there, and his presence in VA most likely cost Rubio there as well.
Him and Ben "Bedblocker" Carson (Who is less likely than the reincarnated love child of Elvis and Jesus to win the nomination at this point) probably cost Rubio the 20% threshold in Texas too xD
Having so many candidates hurts Trump most of all as it stops him getting 50% plus.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
Isn't there the argument that a substantial minority of these migrants will get access to free movement eventually?? I don't think thats what we should be voting on but its more honest than claiming Norway has to follow three quarters of EU laws.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
Not so, although you wish it so.
If leave win on the basis of massive popular concern about what is happening on the frontiers of central Europe, there is not the faintest chance of the government hand waving it away and going for an EEA/EFTA solution, it would be political suicide, Corbyn or no Corbyn. The Tory loyalists are massively overconfident about how much leeway with the public the bearded tit gives them.
I don't know about the other examples set out above, but the 8 years 5 months for South Korea - the EU's 9th largest trading partner - looks highly suspect.
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
I don't know about the other examples set out above, but the 8 years 5 months for South Korea - the EU's 9th largest trading partner - looks highly suspect.
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
I think that remains to be seen. It may be that large numbers of migrants admitted to EU member States will make their way here; it may be that Germany will eventually succeed in forcing the rest of the EU to accept migrant quotas; or it may be that the Dublin accord will be scrapped and EU member states will simply refuse to accept deportations back to the state where failed asylum claimants last came from. Or it may be that none of these things will happen, and the migrant crisis will blow over, and those who have been admitted to Germany and Sweden will settle down there.
So, what are you saying - that it is down to other European leaders blocking such a trade deals? Why? And if so - why in the name of feck would you want to be chained together with such people?
All I'm saying is that any deal will be done either by QMV, or by unanimity (it's slightly unclear which), plus of course requiring the consent of the four EFTA nations if we want to use EFTA as the framework. Obviously that might take quite a long time. The more bespoke the deal is compared with the EEA agreement, the more likely it is to take a long time.
In the meantime, and if it looked as though it was going to take longer than the 2-year Article 50 exit process, we'd (hopefully!) agree some kind of interim deal, to allow trade to continue with minimum disruption. That would be highly desirable, but obviously would take some of the urgency out of getting a final deal.
As I said upthread, I think the key parameter to focus on is not the length of time to finalise the legalities, but the length of time of business uncertainty about the nature of the final deal.
I'd like to think EFTA/EEA would be an option but not sure that EFTA countries would welcome a game changer of a country as big as us joining them. Either way simply joining EFTA and staying in the EEA would not satisfy the glorious isolationists.
I don't know about the other examples set out above, but the 8 years 5 months for South Korea - the EU's 9th largest trading partner - looks highly suspect.
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
It's hardly surprising that Leave lacks intellectual rigour given it's got the likes of Grayling and Duncan Smith in charge.
And you are siding with Jeremy Hunt, I bet that makes you feel all warm inside.
I don't think Chris has had anything good to say about Cameron,Osborne or Hunt but all of a sudden with them leading the remain campaign,they up there with abe Lincoln ;-)
Mr Meeks is another who has undergone that Damascene conversion.
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
If remain does win,I will remind the posters on here who voted remain and who big up everything British except when it comes to British self confidence in the world.
I can think of one or two on here,can you.
Agree Plato.
=====Godwin alert=======
I sometimes wonder of those remain arguments are that far away from those made by Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax in 1940.
Afternoon all. In case it's easier to look at here, here's a link to the full table:............1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner. ....None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
Mr Meeks, any form of negotiations has to be set against the backdrop of who has most to gain and lose. In these international negotiations the larger trading partners within the EU rely on us to buy more of their goods than the figure we have to sell to them. Can Germany afford disruption in one of its biggest european purchasers of its goods at this time of economic low/no growth? The answer is no and that applies to the key EU countries. Because of this and other factors, deals can be done and we have cash and influence that can lubricate the process. We are no longer the sick man of Europe that we were in the 1970s.
Britain, being proportionately more dependent on trade with the EU than the EU is on trade with the UK, is in no position to set down preconditions. Moreover, different EU states have different interests and each has a veto.
Look, this is what happens.
If we Leave companies will continue to buy and sell stuff they want, countries don't buy or sell anything, it is a complete myth. If BMW sell me a car they don't invoice UK who in turn invoice me.
I'd love to know how many people on this site make a living from buying and selling things, I'd guess very few.
Afternoon all. In case it's easier to look at here, here's a link to the full table:............1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner. ....None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
Mr Meeks, any form of negotiations has to be set against the backdrop of who has most to gain and lose. In these international negotiations the larger trading partners within the EU rely on us to buy more of their goods than the figure we have to sell to them. Can Germany afford disruption in one of its biggest european purchasers of its goods at this time of economic low/no growth? The answer is no and that applies to the key EU countries. Because of this and other factors, deals can be done and we have cash and influence that can lubricate the process. We are no longer the sick man of Europe that we were in the 1970s.
Britain, being proportionately more dependent on trade with the EU than the EU is on trade with the UK, is in no position to set down preconditions. Moreover, different EU states have different interests and each has a veto.
Mr Meeks in cash terms more flows one way than the other. We spend more on their goods and we give more in tax money to them. We could also choose to substitute overseas aid for some of the lost tax. Why do you have such a low opinion on our abilities?
Victoria Pendleton wins her first race under rules - looks like she'll be riding at Cheltenham now. Seriously impressive effort since she only sat on a horse for the first time a year ago.
One thing that it is essential to remember. Inside or outside the EU, we have a very strong vested interest in assisting European countries to defend their frontiers.
Another is that the EU migration crisis has got very little to do with the EU, even less to do with our membership of the EU, and absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU if we end up staying in the EEA anyway.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
Not so, although you wish it so.
If leave win on the basis of massive popular concern about what is happening on the frontiers of central Europe, there is not the faintest chance of the government hand waving it away and going for an EEA/EFTA solution, it would be political suicide, Corbyn or no Corbyn. The Tory loyalists are massively overconfident about how much leeway with the public the bearded tit gives them.
Smirking Osborne's plans for pensions will no doubt wind up even more Tory voters. Labour just need to bide their time, and figure out how to install a sensible leader.
Victoria Pendleton wins her first race under rules - looks like she'll be riding at Cheltenham now. Seriously impressive effort since she only sat on a horse for the first time a year ago.
Coral were offering 2/1 she would fall off again. Glad I didn't take it
Comments
Exactly. There is unlikely to be a better moment for this than now.
In the meantime, and if it looked as though it was going to take longer than the 2-year Article 50 exit process, we'd (hopefully!) agree some kind of interim deal, to allow trade to continue with minimum disruption. That would be highly desirable, but obviously would take some of the urgency out of getting a final deal.
As I said upthread, I think the key parameter to focus on is not the length of time to finalise the legalities, but the length of time of business uncertainty about the nature of the final deal.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/goodbye-rubio-tuesday.html?wpsrc=nymag
Didn't reckon Cam's chances in 2015 one jot, suddenly Cam's a genius I tell you.
Haven't looked, am I right ?
She is terrified every bonfire night as it reminds her of the blitz.
King James Bible
Lionel Messi can go anywhere to play football, Carlisle's reserve goalie might struggle. If you're good at what you do you'll be fine and wanted.
when you change with every new day... still I'm gonna miss you.. ain't life unkind?
— Donald Trump, quoted by The Hill.
These will be two biggest people in Republican party in about a month.
David - nicely put as always.
But I think it is not themselves the Remainers are kidding. Rather they are trying to kid the public.
Carswell is chained to Farage. Admittedly that is self immolation.
No longer, after S.Tuesday I have to downgrade them to 50%, with Cruz at 25% and 25% for a convention.
The result for Trump although impressive on paper, lacks depth:
1. He only won 7 while he was expected to win 10.
2. And from those 7 he won 3 by very small margins.
3. He underperformed the polls by 5 points
4. His underwhelming performance boosted the morale of his enemies.
5. Fox News will try to kill him at the debate tomorrow
6.The schedule is not in Trumps favour, he is on course to lose the majority of caucuses and primaries from now till March 15th.
Trump has to survive the Fox News debate but I don't give him high chances.
He has to survive the attacks from the establishment and far right factions, instead of accepting the front runner as usual at this point in the campaigns they show no signs of that. Now they will be more ferocious and organized and I give him some chances of surviving that.
But on Saturday Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine vote, only republicans can vote in those so no independents for Trump, and only Louisiana is a primary, and only Maine is safe territory for him.
Cruz can win all the others and Trump only Maine.
That on top of Fox News killing Trump on the debate will be extremely damaging for Trump.
I gave Trump 90% chances on the assumption that the party will see the writing on the wall after Nevada and give up, it didn't.
And that Trump will sweep S.Tuesday, he didn't.
This is his most dangerous moment since losing Iowa.
I can think of one or two on here,can you.
Have I got that right?
In the medium-long term, it's extremely dangerous for our national interest.
There were no foreign troops marching down Whitehall which was my point.
I didn't say we were not in the war. affected by the war, I said "different perspective" on the war. No close combat. No foreign troops invaded us, which makes us almost unique as a European nation.
The nonsense I'm reading on here is extraordinary, some are suggesting if Brexit occurs the channel tunnel will be concreted.
I don't care if it takes 10 minutes or ten years to Leave, its becoming clearer by the day the EU needs us more than we need them.
2. We did not surrender. (Achievement).
3. We won. (Pride).
Almost every Remain argument is too hard, too risky, too controversial or may effect my immediate circumstances a teeny bit - so let's just avoid it.
They've every right to make that choice, but it's not for me.
We don't like the EU because we think we are better than it...
This was in the Korea Times of 7th January 2009:
"Since the signing of an FTA with the United States [on June 30] 2007, South Korea has held seven rounds of negotiations with the EU,"
It was finally signed on 15th October, 2009
27 months. This was even allowing for difficulty in negotiating as "both sides have been reluctant to accept each other's demands on tariff reductions, rules of origin and auto trade and auto-related technical standards"
Here is a link to the document, that could be used as a template:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/february/tradoc_111835.pdf
One can see the Balkan states deciding that they've had enough very rapidly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1d1Y5dWhjQllTbGs/view?usp=sharing
I see that "this time it's different" is very popular with Leavers. So let's look at the differences.
1) Those advocating Leave have no agreement about what Britain's negotiating priorities should be in the event of Brexit. In fact, they can't even gather under a single banner.
2) Those negotiating on the other side have not begun to think in detail about what exit terms they are ready to offer or their negotiating stance.
3) Any deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations.
4) The negotiations would be taking place in unusually hostile circumstances: most such negotiations take place with the two sides having a broadly common aim.
5) The negotiations would be taking place against a backdrop of intense domestic political concerns in all EU member states.
None of those differences suggest to me that we can look for the accelerator pedal to be hit.
Him and Ben "Bedblocker" Carson (Who is less likely than the reincarnated love child of Elvis and Jesus to win the nomination at this point) probably cost Rubio the 20% threshold in Texas too xD
This is the ridiculous hypocrisy of it all, if you want to Leave and have immigration concerns you're a racist. Totally ignoring the EU has immigration concerns.
Meeks/Nabavi/TSE can warble on about EEA,ECJ, EFTA yadda yadda all they like, but they don't edit the news that millions watch.
Still it makes a change from whipped up hysteria over the Syrian migration crisis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35696701
Wtf.....how can employer be expected to stop an employee just going loco & attacking somebody.
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/705047330886656000
Or at least they didn't.
Of course, @blackburn63 may be right that voters will be influenced by the TV pictures. It's Leave's only, if dishonest, hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYtQMhnBtTw
He's just out-Rubioed Rubio's legendary expectation management !!
And please elaborate what is "dishonest", in relation to Leave, about TV pictures?
And the GOP will have 1968 type riots in their convention, Trump will run as an independent on some states and tell his supporters to kick the GOP any way they can like voting against Senators and Representatives.
The Establishment would win at the cost of demolishing the GOP and denouncing their own voters, at the extremes they might end up like the LD at least temporarily.
The democrats would gain massive majorities in the Senate and the House if Trump's 30% votes against the GOP, I estimate the republicans losing 15 Senate seats and 100 House seats.
The impact in the House will be bigger since they are all up for re-election this year.
Basically they would be blowing the GOP up rather than surrendering it to an outsider.
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/704084679943704576
Cruz getting 10% more than the exit poll, in LBJ's Texas. Nothing suspicious there.
If leave win on the basis of massive popular concern about what is happening on the frontiers of central Europe, there is not the faintest chance of the government hand waving it away and going for an EEA/EFTA solution, it would be political suicide, Corbyn or no Corbyn. The Tory loyalists are massively overconfident about how much leeway with the public the bearded tit gives them.
Either way simply joining EFTA and staying in the EEA would not satisfy the glorious isolationists.
I sometimes wonder of those remain arguments are that far away from those made by Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax in 1940.
If we Leave companies will continue to buy and sell stuff they want, countries don't buy or sell anything, it is a complete myth. If BMW sell me a car they don't invoice UK who in turn invoice me.
I'd love to know how many people on this site make a living from buying and selling things, I'd guess very few.