Vladimir Putin is purposefully creating a refugee crisis in order to “overwhelm” and “break” Europe, Nato’s military commander in Europe said today.
Gen Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the head of the US European Command, said that President Putin and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad had “weaponised” migration through a campaign of bombardment against civilian centres.
There was me thinking it was the us, France, the Americans, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf countries that had started and fueled the Syrian civil war. That it was George Soros then encouraging the immigrants to come here. I should have known it was that dastardly Putin all along.
Soros has more influence over goings-on in Syria than Putin??
You think Putin personally controls what happens internally in Turkey, that it isn't Erdogan controlling what happens in these refugee camps and on their borders??
You think Putin is determining EU immigration policy, that it isn't Merkel, Soros et al??
Conflicting thoughts on the opinion polls right now. * Part of me says that people outside the bubble have not fully engaged with the referendum yet and that this is likely to favour Leave. Thus, maybe Leave needs to be a good way ahead now if it is to have a chance of winning in June. * But another part says that a lot of people will never engage and that turnout will be low - something that will heavily favour Leave. On balance, I reckon that the second is a stronger factor than the first, which is why I was one of the few to have Leave down as the winner in the PB survey.
Vladimir Putin is purposefully creating a refugee crisis in order to “overwhelm” and “break” Europe, Nato’s military commander in Europe said today.
Gen Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the head of the US European Command, said that President Putin and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad had “weaponised” migration through a campaign of bombardment against civilian centres.
There was me thinking it was the us, France, the Americans, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf countries that had started and fueled the Syrian civil war. That it was George Soros then encouraging the immigrants to come here. I should have known it was that dastardly Putin all along.
Soros has more influence over goings-on in Syria than Putin??
You think Putin personally controls what happens internally in Turkey, that it isn't Erdogan controlling what happens in these refugee camps and on their borders??
You think Putin is determining EU immigration policy, that it isn't Merkel, Soros et al??
I think Merkel has most influence of all, but its ridiculous to claim a New York based banker has more influence over Syrian refugees than the guy currently bombing Syria!!
Vladimir Putin is purposefully creating a refugee crisis in order to “overwhelm” and “break” Europe, Nato’s military commander in Europe said today.
Gen Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the head of the US European Command, said that President Putin and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad had “weaponised” migration through a campaign of bombardment against civilian centres.
It's really quite astonishing what you can blame Russia for these days.
Like deliberately bombing civilians. Crazy to suggest they are doing that with their bombing of civilian areas with non-precision munitions.
I have regrettable civilian losses in my bid to bring democracy to the downtrodden. You have premeditated plans to deliberately bomb the innocent (extra points for women and children) in your bid to take over the world.
What has happened to the Independent. In article on Brexit it describes Lord Rose as "former M&S executive" rather than... the head of the Remain campaign!!
What has happened to the Independent. In article on Brexit it describes Lord Rose as "former M&S executive" rather than... the head of the Remain campaign!!
John Lansman Really pleased to hear that 2 outstanding TU leaders @MattWrack & @MarkSerwotka have been accepted as members of @uklabour - not before time
Question for anyone more familiar with the US scene than me: is there an online resource that shows the Republican and Democrat candidates for Congress (when they've won their primaries), ideally with email addresses? (The reason I'm asking is for my job - we'd like to do a survey of them on an animal welfare issue.) I wouldn't expect Trump and Clinton to engage on it, but candidate X for District Y might.
Well he is leading by that much in the phone polls.
And I'm sure your betting position is entirely based exclusively around those phone polls.... No?
I still expect Leave to lose, but it could yet be insanely close.... If it is 51-49, then Cameron owns every EU-woe that comes down the line from July. "I only voted to stay because Cameron assured me it was the best thing to do for Britain. Now look at us! The French taking our bloody pension pots*..."
*by way of example, rather than prediction.
If it's 51-49 I'd expect a second referendum in the next Parliament.
There are two ways you'd get a 2nd referendum so quickly.
One is if the EU came back to us with a much better offer, in very short order. That's possible. But rather unlikely.
Two is if the UK collapsed - sterling tanked, no one would lend us money - and we had to go begging to the EU to reconsider and let us back in. That's even less likely than option 1.
Otherwise there's no political or democratic reason for a 2nd vote. Won't happen.
If a sceptical Tory leader became PM, which a 51-49 vote would mean Tories were overwhelmingly for Out then I can see it being possible after the next key dispute. If the PM were to be backing Leave then I think Leave would clearly win too, especially if it was so close the previous time having the PM backing Leave rather than Remain would swing over 1%
What has happened to the Independent. In article on Brexit it describes Lord Rose as "former M&S executive" rather than... the head of the Remain campaign!!
Douglas Carswell Great news! Over four out of every five UKIP councillors across the UK have now endorsed @vote_leave #Winning https://t.co/joxMtroxWC
Are we sure they are not also endorsing the other lot, though?
Hard for Farage to argue that Vote Leave isn't cross party as far as UKIP are concerned when it's only MP and over 80% of its Councillors back Vote Leave
Podemos & PP voting against PSOE/Ciudadanos coalition in Spain, so it's back to the drawing board. Looks like another general election is now unavoidable. You expect it from Podemos, but PP is playing a very dangerous, irresponsible game. At some stage voters will punish them for it, especially hiven the various corruption scandals senior officials are implicated in.
I think the reason why doctors sometimes don't want to have to check eligiblity is that it might show how many non existant patients they are prescribing for...
..and if they h ad to char g e a fiver to see a doctor... the surgeries would empty and loads of doctors would become unemployed.
Is that a bad thing? If a £5 charge drops visits by that much, surely they must be dealing with many frivolous medical issues which dont justify a visit to the doctor.
If you introduce a £5 charge to see doctors then people would put off going to see the doctor for minor ailments when they are at their cheapest to treat and instead will clog up emergency rooms with major problems that are expensive to treat.
A fair point. Perhaps a charge for wasting a doctor's time then
Douglas Carswell Great news! Over four out of every five UKIP councillors across the UK have now endorsed @vote_leave #Winning https://t.co/joxMtroxWC
Are we sure they are not also endorsing the other lot, though?
Hard for Farage to argue that Vote Leave isn't cross party as far as UKIP are concerned when it's only MP and over 80% of its Councillors back Vote Leave
Yes, but that was what was behind my question. Carswell's figure seems very surprising, but would make more sense if some of those councillors have signed up to both campaigns. I've no idea whether they have.
What has happened to the Independent. In article on Brexit it describes Lord Rose as "former M&S executive" rather than... the head of the Remain campaign!!
Cameron is effectively Con leader, Alan Johnson the Lab leader, of Remain, and Will Straw ties it together.
Yes, Rose is Remain's own walking disaster area.
When you look at his and Greg Dyke's performance in their follow-on roles it's hard not to conclude that heading up a major retailer or broadcaster must be easier than it looks.
I think the reason why doctors sometimes don't want to have to check eligiblity is that it might show how many non existant patients they are prescribing for...
T ..and if they h ad to char g e a fiver to see a doctor... the surgeries would empty and loads of doctors would become unemployed.
Is that a bad thing? If a £5 charge drops visits by that much, surely they must be dealing with many frivolous medical issues which dont justify a visit to the doctor.
If you introduce a £5 charge to see doctors then people would put off going to see the doctor for minor ailments when they are at their cheapest to treat and instead will clog up emergency rooms with major problems that are expensive to treat.
A fair point. Perhaps a charge for wasting a doctor's time then
"You might argue that the EU will pay much closer attention..." Well, indeed you might!
To compare the exit of a major member which currently has uniformity of relevant rules with the EU, to the negotiation from scratch with countries that do not have the same rules etc. is self-evidently ridiculous.
No wonder no one else has done a similar exercise before.
This does however serve to show how lethargic the EU is in opening up trade.
Question for anyone more familiar with the US scene than me: is there an online resource that shows the Republican and Democrat candidates for Congress (when they've won their primaries), ideally with email addresses? (The reason I'm asking is for my job - we'd like to do a survey of them on an animal welfare issue.) I wouldn't expect Trump and Clinton to engage on it, but candidate X for District Y might.
Anybody know where I can put a deposit down on a cave? The price will rocket if we Leave the demand will be so high.
I'm already collecting sea-shells. They're our new currency, after Brexit. You heard it here first....
From a marketing POV 'washlets' as they are called are a HUUUGE missed opportunity imo. It would be very easy for a determined sales team to get them into all the top hotels and restaurants (for the best bottoms), and once established at the high end they would quite quickly catch on.
Washlets are the future. Can't stand using dry paper now. I got used to the spritzy hygiene of bum guns in Asia and washlets are the next best thing.
They will take over the West in time. WASHLETS.
Er, I think I'd better go to the shops.
They are a bit of a disaster for sewerage systems though. A nightmare for water treatment works also. Bin don't flush!
You Asked Us: Why Do Black Voters Support Hillary Clinton?
Ethnic minority voters are the key to Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Why don't they like Bernie Sanders?
As someone that is part black, I think black voters have a lot less entitlement to political change than white viters. They know that change is hard won and achievements shouldn't be dismissed easily. Hence they tend to vote for moderate left pragmatic candidates even when they are more in tune with final policy goals of very liberal ones.
I still believe its going to be Labour voters that win this for Leave, most are meh about the EU, it just doesn't get them as excited as it does the Tories. A big chunk will either not bother to vote or take the opportunity to kick Cameron's arse. Unlike the Labour party plenty have big immigration concerns, barbed wire fences will get the WWC voting, that's for sure.
I wouldn't discount it but I think dislike of UKIP will motivate a good few particularly once the unions get campaigning, The much-vaunted UKIP breakthrough in Labour heartlands has never really materialised and if anything has receded - got absolutely nowhere in Oldham by-election despite much ramping that it would be close.
Many might like to give Cameron a kicking but not if it means supporting Farage, Gove and Boris.
Immigration might be a big issue with the WWC but I think by the time we get to June it will be pretty much clear that LEAVE will be trading free movement away to get a decent trade deal. Trying to square free trade & immigration is already causing big problems with nearly 5 months to go.
By June I fully expect Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to be pulling the stops out to get their supporters to the polls for REMAIN. At the moment I'm sure they are all sitting with their popcorn watching the EU tear the Tories apart (yet again!)
"You might argue that the EU will pay much closer attention..." Well, indeed you might!
To compare the exit of a major member which currently has uniformity of relevant rules with the EU, to the negotiation from scratch with countries that do not have the same rules etc. is self-evidently ridiculous.
No wonder no one else has done a similar exercise before.
This does however serve to show how lethargic the EU is in opening up trade.
To repeat a point I made earlier, "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.
On your first point, if Britain votes to leave the EU on 23 June 2016, it is likely that the EU will be facing the following important and urgent challenges:
a) continued large numbers of migrants coming into the EU b) the continued need to stabilise the Eurozone c) negotiating TTIP with the US d) negotiating exit terms for the UK
It is far from obvious that negotiating exit terms for the UK will be the EU's highest priority out of these four. It might well rank last out of four.
I still believe its going to be Labour voters that win this for Leave, most are meh about the EU, it just doesn't get them as excited as it does the Tories. A big chunk will either not bother to vote or take the opportunity to kick Cameron's arse. Unlike the Labour party plenty have big immigration concerns, barbed wire fences will get the WWC voting, that's for sure.
It is not working class Labour voters who will win the referendum but middle-class Labour and LD and Tory and SNP voters, if Remain win the middle-class they should narrowly win even if they lose the working-class as the middle-class have higher turnout. I would expect middle class Tories to be slightly more likely to vote Remain than working class Tories, some of whom will now be voting for UKIP anyway
Project Crap Your Pants, Britain has thrown EVERYTHING in the last week. The result is an MOE move to LEAVE, with Gold Standard ICM. And a dead heat. With turnout probably favouring LEAVE.
Cameron will be getting his blood pressure checked. Hah.
This isn't ICM gold standard. The Gold Standard was their phone polls, this is an online poll.
Gold enough to give Cameron the squitters, I'd say. Look at that sample size. And this is after a week when they've basically used all their best ammo. Diminishing returns from now on?
They've not even started yet.
They've got their heavy artillery to deploy in May and June.
Smirking Osborne poses a greater threat to old age, than Brexit.
Smirking Osborne may be a reason to vote Brexit given what is supposedly going to be announced by him in the budget. i can foresee many people voting the opposite of what he wants out of spite.
Its amazing that people are basing the future of their country on an alleged smirk. But I suppose its true enough - its clear that leavers are forming their opinions on the crassest of self indulgence.
The Mail article (dated Sept15) BTW points out ''The previous Labour government set out plans, based on recommendations from Lord Turner, to steadily increase the state pension age to 68 for both men and women over the next four decades''. Whither Osborne? It does hypothesise that pension age could rise further but that is a quote from Standard Life. The Telegraph article says the OBR has suggested the state pension age might have to rise to 70, but by the 2060s - ie in 50years!
What the govt are doing is giving people more freedom with their private pensions and at some point I guess come forward with proposals for saving for your private pension. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35360978
I still believe its going to be Labour voters that win this for Leave, most are meh about the EU, it just doesn't get them as excited as it does the Tories. A big chunk will either not bother to vote or take the opportunity to kick Cameron's arse. Unlike the Labour party plenty have big immigration concerns, barbed wire fences will get the WWC voting, that's for sure.
I wouldn't discount it but I think dislike of UKIP will motivate a good few particularly once the unions get campaigning, The much-vaunted UKIP breakthrough in Labour heartlands has never really materialised and if anything has receded - got absolutely nowhere in Oldham by-election despite much ramping that it would be close. ....
We will see in the locals whether what you believe is true. These locals will play out against a backdrop of immigration being a more dominant issue than in most previous elections. The conditions are therefore more favourable for UKIP, but their internal warfare may hamper the gains.
"You might argue that the EU will pay much closer attention..." Well, indeed you might!
To compare the exit of a major member which currently has uniformity of relevant rules with the EU, to the negotiation from scratch with countries that do not have the same rules etc. is self-evidently ridiculous.
No wonder no one else has done a similar exercise before.
This does however serve to show how lethargic the EU is in opening up trade.
To repeat a point I made earlier, "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.
On your first point, if Britain votes to leave the EU on 23 June 2016, it is likely that the EU will be facing the following important and urgent challenges:
a) continued large numbers of migrants coming into the EU b) the continued need to stabilise the Eurozone c) negotiating TTIP with the US d) negotiating exit terms for the UK
It is far from obvious that negotiating exit terms for the UK will be the EU's highest priority out of these four. It might well rank last out of four.
(1) Not up to Leave. It's up to the government of the day. "Betrayal" or not is irrelevant
(2) Possible, but I am sure that there will have been planning
(3) I disagree on this - if it is a net benefit for the EU, especially the big countries, there will be a deal done (or arms twisted) to get the support of the small countries. That's the way the EU works
(4) Bollocks. People say this, but politicians and bureaucrats are pragmatists at the end of the day. Both parties have an interest in a smooth exit and continued trading - they both want good relations with an important neighbout
(5) A fair point, but after the middle of 2017 you are past the most important elections (I think) in France and Germany
Douglas Carswell Great news! Over four out of every five UKIP councillors across the UK have now endorsed @vote_leave #Winning https://t.co/joxMtroxWC
Are we sure they are not also endorsing the other lot, though?
Hard for Farage to argue that Vote Leave isn't cross party as far as UKIP are concerned when it's only MP and over 80% of its Councillors back Vote Leave
Yes, but that was what was behind my question. Carswell's figure seems very surprising, but would make more sense if some of those councillors have signed up to both campaigns. I've no idea whether they have.
Yes it's entirely possible they have. But if UKIP have signed up for both and Tory and Labour Leavers have signed up disproportionately for Vote Leave then that'd make Vote Leave the cross party group.
Why should Leavers unite under a single platform of what the future should be. If we leave then it will be up to us to decide that in our regular elections. Leave are united on that.
Anybody know where I can put a deposit down on a cave? The price will rocket if we Leave the demand will be so high.
I'm already collecting sea-shells. They're our new currency, after Brexit. You heard it here first....
From a marketing POV 'washlets' as they are called are a HUUUGE missed opportunity imo. It would be very easy for a determined sales team to get them into all the top hotels and restaurants (for the best bottoms), and once established at the high end they would quite quickly catch on.
Washlets are the future. Can't stand using dry paper now. I got used to the spritzy hygiene of bum guns in Asia and washlets are the next best thing.
They will take over the West in time. WASHLETS.
Er, I think I'd better go to the shops.
They are a bit of a disaster for sewerage systems though. A nightmare for water treatment works also. Bin don't flush!
Question for anyone more familiar with the US scene than me: is there an online resource that shows the Republican and Democrat candidates for Congress (when they've won their primaries), ideally with email addresses? (The reason I'm asking is for my job - we'd like to do a survey of them on an animal welfare issue.) I wouldn't expect Trump and Clinton to engage on it, but candidate X for District Y might.
Why should Leavers unite under a single platform of what the future should be. If we leave then it will be up to us to decide that in our regular elections. Leave are united on that.
The Leavers should unite under a single bannner: the banner of the government's increasingly Comical Ali propaganda.
There's no need for Leavers to do much. Just sit back and laugh at the government hysterics.
I'm a government supporter but I'm shocked at how rubbish they've been over this EU issue. And now by resorting to ridiculously overblown predictions of doom I've lost a lot of respect for them. Sad to say it but they are becoming Brownesque.
And I couldn't think of a more disappointing adjective than that.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
I think it is by QMV, but there would be major states such as France who might vote against any trade deal that included the single EU passport rights for the City. A deal for goods trading would be very simple, including tariff free service trading might not be as easy to achieve, but I imagine if we slapped a 10% charge on German and French cars it wouldn't take long for them to fall in line.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
I think it is by QMV, but there would be major states such as France who might vote against any trade deal that included the single EU passport rights for the City.
It's probably QMV, but that's not totally clear. For example, according to the Source Of All Knowledge, in its page on the Canadian-EU trade deal:
The agreement is to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
Lawyer on a sticky wicket tries to move the discussion elsewhere - shock!
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
Neill did say that. He said that there were no tariffs in continental Europe all the way from Iceland to Turkey including all the non-EU states, with the exception of Belarus, so why did Hancock think the EU were going to impose tariffs on the UK... so Hancock did a Meeks, and changed the subject.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
To be fair to Matt Hancock the bullshit in that document would've floored any govt representative trying to defend it.
It really, really, really bugs me when politicians use blatant propaganda.
I think it is by QMV, but there would be major states such as France who might vote against any trade deal that included the single EU passport rights for the City.
It's probably QMV, but that's not totally clear. For example, according to the Source Of All Knowledge, in its page on the Canadian-EU trade deal:
The agreement is to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed.
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
Neill did say that. He said that there were no tariffs in continental Europe all the way from Iceland to Turkey including all the non-EU states, with the exception of Belarus, so why did Hancock think the EU were going to impose tariffs on the UK... so Hancock did a Meeks, and changed the subject.
Surely it's Leave who have suggested we could rely on the WTO option?
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
To be fair to Matt Hancock the bullshit in that document would've floored any govt representative trying to defend it.
It really, really, really bugs me when politicians use blatant propaganda.
Disappointing from this govt.
Me too.
Unfortunately this government is even worse than Blair's when it comes to telling whoppers. I say this as a former party member who doesn't have the slightest intention of rejoining so long as this piss poor lack of honest and general contempt for the voters continues.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
The 9% and 0% moments were great. On tariffs, a trade war helps no one which is why a deal will be done.
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
Neill did say that. He said that there were no tariffs in continental Europe all the way from Iceland to Turkey including all the non-EU states, with the exception of Belarus, so why did Hancock think the EU were going to impose tariffs on the UK... so Hancock did a Meeks, and changed the subject.
Surely it's Leave who have suggested we could rely on the WTO option?
But they probably wont have to because the EU Neighbourhood Policy for interacting with adjoining countries not in the EU talks about attempting to maintain the best possible trade relations which in the current reality means no tariffs.
But even if we assume the worse case, and the EU treats us right down with the banana republics, the tariffs are less than 2%, hardly a game changer. As has been said before at that level the money we don't pay for the EU membership could be used to reimburse companies losing money from tariffs and the UK would still be better off overall.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
To be fair to Matt Hancock the bullshit in that document would've floored any govt representative trying to defend it.
It really, really, really bugs me when politicians use blatant propaganda.
Disappointing from this govt.
The Remain campaign have really hurt their credibility whenever they've tried numbers. First we had three million jobs (which actually referred to losing all exports to EU), then we had £3000 benefit to every household (which actually was the CBI cherry picking bits of research and adding them together), then we had prices rising by £450 per family (actually an analysis of US trade deals), and now have 75% of laws still appling in the EEA (actually 9% for Norway and 0% for Swiss domestic economy).
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Question for anyone more familiar with the US scene than me: is there an online resource that shows the Republican and Democrat candidates for Congress (when they've won their primaries), ideally with email addresses? (The reason I'm asking is for my job - we'd like to do a survey of them on an animal welfare issue.) I wouldn't expect Trump and Clinton to engage on it, but candidate X for District Y might.
My hero! Consider yourself PB animal champion of the month. Thank you very much.
Nick, I'm sure you don't need any more reasons to recoil from Donald Trump, but him defending his hunter sons after photos emerged of them with dead wildlife - including a leopard - won't do him any favours with the animal welfare lobby come November....
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
No I think you were right on this in your original post Richard. If this were merely a trade deal then it would be an EU competency decided by QMV. But the specific case of Article 50 means that the agreement has to be unanimous. As I said the other day it is one of the strange quirks of the Lisbon treaty.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
The 9% and 0% moments were great. On tariffs, a trade war helps no one which is why a deal will be done.
* Will a deal be done? Yes. * Will a deal be done quickly? If you want lots of big changes, no, and possibly not at all. If you want a few, little changes, then yes. * Will the deal be all that you want it to be? No. * Will the fuss be worth the candle? I say no, tho' YMMV.
Andrew Neill's interview of Matt Hancock was brutal but one thing not mentioned was these tariffs that the Remain campaign are arguing about will be 99% removed. The idea this will majorly impact our trading position is absurd. They do the same thing with Norwegian laws and budget contributions.
Neill did say that. He said that there were no tariffs in continental Europe all the way from Iceland to Turkey including all the non-EU states, with the exception of Belarus, so why did Hancock think the EU were going to impose tariffs on the UK... so Hancock did a Meeks, and changed the subject.
But he didn't challenge Hancock when Hancock said Canada position meant falling back on WTO option of tariffs up to 10%. Thats not true. Canada's deal gets rid of 99% of those tariffs, including examples like cars that Hancock mentioned.
But they probably wont have to because the EU Neighbourhood Policy for interacting with adjoining countries not in the EU talks about attempting to maintain the best possible trade relations which in the current reality means no tariffs.
But even if we assume the worse case, and the EU treats us right down with the banana republics, the tariffs are less than 2%, hardly a game changer. As has been said before at that level the money we don't pay for the EU membership could be used to reimburse companies losing money from tariffs and the UK would still be better off overall.
Well, if Leave want to rule out the WTO option, they should say so. If they don't, they can hardly complain when it is pointed out that such an option might mean tariffs, of uncertain amounts up to 10% for cars for example.
It is Leave who are slippery, not the government. Every time someone points out that Brexit Option A has snag X, the invariable responses is 'Ah yes, but we don't need to do Option A'. But they won't tell us what option they do want considered.
No I think you were right on this in your original post Richard. If this were merely a trade deal then it would be an EU competency decided by QMV. But the specific case of Article 50 means that the agreement has to be unanimous. As I said the other day it is one of the strange quirks of the Lisbon treaty.
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
No I think you were right on this in your original post Richard. If this were merely a trade deal then it would be an EU competency decided by QMV. But the specific case of Article 50 means that the agreement has to be unanimous. As I said the other day it is one of the strange quirks of the Lisbon treaty.
Couldn't you agree EEA membership under Article 50 with understanding that you will continue to negotiate a more permanent position as a simple QMV trade deal later??
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
All EU countries have an obligation (note the word) to introduce domestic legislation to give it effect. That is the same for any EU directive. That does not however give each nation a Veto. Rather, as we in the UK have been told squiddly umpty times since 1973, it is an obligation with which wwe have to comply on pain of penalty.
Maybe HMG all these years should have just been saying no to anything that is not in the UK's interest like, as per the link you produced, Bulgaria and Rumania. We do not have a veto we just don't comply.
And yet they still happen. One of my favorite too-good-to-check statistics is that immediately before WWII, Germany's biggest trading partner was France. People act against their best interest every day and end up with suboptimal outcomes.
I think it is by QMV, but there would be major states such as France who might vote against any trade deal that included the single EU passport rights for the City.
It's probably QMV, but that's not totally clear. For example, according to the Source Of All Knowledge, in its page on the Canadian-EU trade deal:
The agreement is to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed.
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
It is unfair to mock Alistair Meeks as he has no experience of international agreements with governments.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
But they probably wont have to because the EU Neighbourhood Policy for interacting with adjoining countries not in the EU talks about attempting to maintain the best possible trade relations which in the current reality means no tariffs.
But even if we assume the worse case, and the EU treats us right down with the banana republics, the tariffs are less than 2%, hardly a game changer. As has been said before at that level the money we don't pay for the EU membership could be used to reimburse companies losing money from tariffs and the UK would still be better off overall.
Well, if Leave want to rule out the WTO option, they should say so. If they don't, they can hardly complain when it is pointed out that such an option might mean tariffs, of uncertain amounts up to 10% for cars for example.
It is Leave who are slippery, not the government. Every time someone points out that Brexit Option A has snag X, the invariable responses is 'Ah yes, but we don't need to do Option A'. But they won't tell us what option they do want considered.
I have thought they have said several times they want a bilateral trade deal negotiated that is unique to the UK. IDS said this just in last couple days.
But claim by Hancock that Canada still has all the tariffs is just false.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
But they probably wont have to because the EU Neighbourhood Policy for interacting with adjoining countries not in the EU talks about attempting to maintain the best possible trade relations which in the current reality means no tariffs.
But even if we assume the worse case, and the EU treats us right down with the banana republics, the tariffs are less than 2%, hardly a game changer. As has been said before at that level the money we don't pay for the EU membership could be used to reimburse companies losing money from tariffs and the UK would still be better off overall.
Well, if Leave want to rule out the WTO option, they should say so. If they don't, they can hardly complain when it is pointed out that such an option might mean tariffs, of uncertain amounts up to 10% for cars for example.
It is Leave who are slippery, not the government. Every time someone points out that Brexit Option A has snag X, the invariable responses is 'Ah yes, but we don't need to do Option A'. But they won't tell us what option they do want considered.
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
No I think you were right on this in your original post Richard. If this were merely a trade deal then it would be an EU competency decided by QMV. But the specific case of Article 50 means that the agreement has to be unanimous. As I said the other day it is one of the strange quirks of the Lisbon treaty.
Couldn't you agree EEA membership under Article 50 with understanding that you will continue to negotiate a more permanent position as a simple QMV trade deal later??
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
And yet they still happen. One of my favorite too-good-to-check statistics is that immediately before WWII, Germany's biggest trading partner was France. People act against their best interest every day and end up with suboptimal outcomes.
Listen to the Neill interview again. Throughout Europe, from Iceland to Turkey, there exists not a single tariff on goods. Not one. In or out. Friend or foe.
Why would the EU want to pick on us, all of a sudden??
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
It wouldn't. We would negotiate a trade deal. That's the whole point: the WTO route - which some in the Leave side have explicitly touted, as a slippery way of countering the uncertainty issue - is a non-option, and can be ruled out.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
Free movement of workers is very important to the people you mention. The Schengen area goes beyond the EU but whether it can deal unamended with a severe migrant crisis rather than normal movements is another matter. We are not in Schengen and do not want to be - its workings or not are irrelevant to us and Ireland.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Mr. Meeks, why ask that question of me? Am I likely to be a decision maker, me a humble pensioner from Sussex?
Now, if you ask for my view of what HMG should do if we vote to leave, then I would suggest the following. HMG should state that the UK is, in principle, an open free-trading nation and seeks as a matter of principle free trade, in goods AND services, with all peoples. The UK is also open to all people, from where ever in the world, and without restriction on race colour creed, who want to come here and contribute to the common good and all applicants will be treated equally. Then negotiate from that statement of principles.
That is just my view, I am not a member of a political party.
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
Why should Leavers unite under a single platform of what the future should be. If we leave then it will be up to us to decide that in our regular elections. Leave are united on that.
The Leavers should unite under a single bannner: the banner of the government's increasingly Comical Ali propaganda.
There's no need for Leavers to do much. Just sit back and laugh at the government hysterics.
I'm a government supporter but I'm shocked at how rubbish they've been over this EU issue. And now by resorting to ridiculously overblown predictions of doom I've lost a lot of respect for them. Sad to say it but they are becoming Brownesque.
And I couldn't think of a more disappointing adjective than that.
+1 (Although I think "Brownian" better suggests the random motion of their particles of propaganda....)
On the day when Remain/Govt brought out from Osborne's Treasury the great dossier that would zap all arguments and impress all and sundry, we close the day mocking the stupid errors in this "dodgy dossier".
Can we all agree that this day is a win for LEAVE?
Question for anyone more familiar with the US scene than me: is there an online resource that shows the Republican and Democrat candidates for Congress (when they've won their primaries), ideally with email addresses? (The reason I'm asking is for my job - we'd like to do a survey of them on an animal welfare issue.) I wouldn't expect Trump and Clinton to engage on it, but candidate X for District Y might.
Comments
You think Putin personally controls what happens internally in Turkey, that it isn't Erdogan controlling what happens in these refugee camps and on their borders??
You think Putin is determining EU immigration policy, that it isn't Merkel, Soros et al??
Great news! Over four out of every five UKIP councillors across the UK have now endorsed @vote_leave #Winning https://t.co/joxMtroxWC
You think Putin is determining EU immigration policy, that it isn't Merkel, Soros et al??
I think Merkel has most influence of all, but its ridiculous to claim a New York based banker has more influence over Syrian refugees than the guy currently bombing Syria!!
I have regrettable civilian losses in my bid to bring democracy to the downtrodden.
You have premeditated plans to deliberately bomb the innocent (extra points for women and children) in your bid to take over the world.
Rinse and repeat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-brexit-clothing-imports-sterling-wardrobe-fashion-a6904816.html
Yes - a complete fraud.
Although it could just be sloppy editing / cut'n'paste
https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/704895222883479552
John Lansman
Really pleased to hear that 2 outstanding TU leaders @MattWrack & @MarkSerwotka have been accepted as members of @uklabour - not before time
Every time I look at the market I'm making a new argument as to why x, y or z is the value.
Michigan: Trump +19%
Florida: Trump +20%
North Carolina: Trump +10%
Illinois: Trump +15%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Incidentally, those 4 states have a combined population of 53m, about the same as England.
Cameron is effectively Con leader, Alan Johnson the Lab leader, of Remain, and Will Straw ties it together.
Actual quote from Lord Rose, chair of Britain Stronger in Europe: "The benefits of being in the EU are outweighed by the costs!"
I assume he meant it the other way round, but he didn't correct himself. In fact, he then barked, "I stand by what I say!"
When you look at his and Greg Dyke's performance in their follow-on roles it's hard not to conclude that heading up a major retailer or broadcaster must be easier than it looks.
#endingsoon
"You might argue that the EU will pay much closer attention..." Well, indeed you might!
To compare the exit of a major member which currently has uniformity of relevant rules with the EU, to the negotiation from scratch with countries that do not have the same rules etc. is self-evidently ridiculous.
No wonder no one else has done a similar exercise before.
This does however serve to show how lethargic the EU is in opening up trade.
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_candidates_running_in_U.S._Congress_elections,_2016
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223482/How-growing-trend-using-wet-wipes-instead-toilet-roll-costs-Thames-Water-12m-year-fix.html
As someone that is part black, I think black voters have a lot less entitlement to political change than white viters. They know that change is hard won and achievements shouldn't be dismissed easily. Hence they tend to vote for moderate left pragmatic candidates even when they are more in tune with final policy goals of very liberal ones.
Many might like to give Cameron a kicking but not if it means supporting Farage, Gove and Boris.
Immigration might be a big issue with the WWC but I think by the time we get to June it will be pretty much clear that LEAVE will be trading free movement away to get a decent trade deal. Trying to square free trade & immigration is already causing big problems with nearly 5 months to go.
By June I fully expect Labour, Lib Dems and SNP to be pulling the stops out to get their supporters to the polls for REMAIN. At the moment I'm sure they are all sitting with their popcorn watching the EU tear the Tories apart (yet again!)
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.
On your first point, if Britain votes to leave the EU on 23 June 2016, it is likely that the EU will be facing the following important and urgent challenges:
a) continued large numbers of migrants coming into the EU
b) the continued need to stabilise the Eurozone
c) negotiating TTIP with the US
d) negotiating exit terms for the UK
It is far from obvious that negotiating exit terms for the UK will be the EU's highest priority out of these four. It might well rank last out of four.
:poor-by-any-standard-yes-including-hb:
Dan Hannan
“You’re effectively saying that the CBI puts out propaganda which is untrue. And frankly, I find that quite credible.” Lord Rose admits it.
The Mail article (dated Sept15) BTW points out ''The previous Labour government set out plans, based on recommendations from Lord Turner, to steadily increase the state pension age to 68 for both men and women over the next four decades''. Whither Osborne?
It does hypothesise that pension age could rise further but that is a quote from Standard Life.
The Telegraph article says the OBR has suggested the state pension age might have to rise to 70, but by the 2060s - ie in 50years!
What the govt are doing is giving people more freedom with their private pensions and at some point I guess come forward with proposals for saving for your private pension.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35360978
"Soddom & Gomorrah" - so why did Mr Cameron consider walking away if he did not get his changes?
(2) Possible, but I am sure that there will have been planning
(3) I disagree on this - if it is a net benefit for the EU, especially the big countries, there will be a deal done (or arms twisted) to get the support of the small countries. That's the way the EU works
(4) Bollocks. People say this, but politicians and bureaucrats are pragmatists at the end of the day. Both parties have an interest in a smooth exit and continued trading - they both want good relations with an important neighbout
(5) A fair point, but after the middle of 2017 you are past the most important elections (I think) in France and Germany
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
There's no need for Leavers to do much. Just sit back and laugh at the government hysterics.
I'm a government supporter but I'm shocked at how rubbish they've been over this EU issue. And now by resorting to ridiculously overblown predictions of doom I've lost a lot of respect for them. Sad to say it but they are becoming Brownesque.
And I couldn't think of a more disappointing adjective than that.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
The agreement is to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. Whether approval by all EU member states is also necessary is disputed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement
It really, really, really bugs me when politicians use blatant propaganda.
Disappointing from this govt.
Unfortunately this government is even worse than Blair's when it comes to telling whoppers. I say this as a former party member who doesn't have the slightest intention of rejoining so long as this piss poor lack of honest and general contempt for the voters continues.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
But even if we assume the worse case, and the EU treats us right down with the banana republics, the tariffs are less than 2%, hardly a game changer. As has been said before at that level the money we don't pay for the EU membership could be used to reimburse companies losing money from tariffs and the UK would still be better off overall.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180201/Trump-defends-big-game-hunting-sons-shamed-Twitter-posing-trophy-kills-including-leopard-elephant-death-Cecil-lion.html
* Will a deal be done quickly? If you want lots of big changes, no, and possibly not at all. If you want a few, little changes, then yes.
* Will the deal be all that you want it to be? No.
* Will the fuss be worth the candle? I say no, tho' YMMV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8vPG0dTuKY
Hancock claims Norway has to accept 75% of EU laws. Andrew Neil proceeds to call him out. Hancock reduced to a stuttering mess.
It is Leave who are slippery, not the government. Every time someone points out that Brexit Option A has snag X, the invariable responses is 'Ah yes, but we don't need to do Option A'. But they won't tell us what option they do want considered.
Maybe HMG all these years should have just been saying no to anything that is not in the UK's interest like, as per the link you produced, Bulgaria and Rumania. We do not have a veto we just don't comply.
But claim by Hancock that Canada still has all the tariffs is just false.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Why would the EU want to pick on us, all of a sudden??
We are not in Schengen and do not want to be - its workings or not are irrelevant to us and Ireland.
Now, if you ask for my view of what HMG should do if we vote to leave, then I would suggest the following. HMG should state that the UK is, in principle, an open free-trading nation and seeks as a matter of principle free trade, in goods AND services, with all peoples. The UK is also open to all people, from where ever in the world, and without restriction on race colour creed, who want to come here and contribute to the common good and all applicants will be treated equally. Then negotiate from that statement of principles.
That is just my view, I am not a member of a political party.
Can we all agree that this day is a win for LEAVE?