Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
9% mostly technical of nature, comprising around 100 pieces of primary legislation. See Hancock's car crash on the subject yesterday
FullFact's take:
These calculations suffer from the same flaw as trying to work out how much of UK law comes from the EU. Some laws are very important, and some are insignificant.
Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
'simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures'
I'm sure we all look forward to your list of these 'disinterested' individuals. I imagine most will be about as 'disinterested' as you are.
Has Alistair Meeks taken lessons from the Sean Thomas role that he had in the newspaper comment articles generating violent clickbait, by just winding people up?
Here is a suggestion Mr Meeks. First take some time out to analyse why the establishment got the ERM and the Euro wrong. Guilty Men by PETER OBORNE AND FRANCES WEAVER is a useful start on the Euro.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
'While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country'
If the Daily Mail had some quotes from "regular" people, do you think that would be representative of the population at large, or what the DM wanted to quote?
Apply to FT.
These quotes were taken from people who had not been particularly selected for the purpose of getting views on Brexit, but on City matters generally. Here they are:
In the FT's own words: "The FT City Network was launched in autumn 2014 as a panel of more than 50 of the City of London’s most influential individuals – from bankers, asset managers and insurers to new-style disrupters and financial technology entrepreneurs. View the heavyweights below, filter by sector and take a quick look at their respective backgrounds"
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
9% mostly technical of nature, comprising around 100 pieces of primary legislation. See Hancock's car crash on the subject yesterday
FullFact's take:
These calculations suffer from the same flaw as trying to work out how much of UK law comes from the EU. Some laws are very important, and some are insignificant.
Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
Because the europhile Norwegian government opts into lots of voluntary EU programs. Did you actually watch the video ? The following are not included in the EEA/EFTA agreement.
common agriculture and fisheries policies (although the EEA Agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products); customs union; common trade policy; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs (the EEA EFTA States are however part of the Schengen area); direct and indirect taxation; or economic and monetary union.
But we went all over this yesterday in detail, but presumably you didn't like the answer so decided to rehearse it again.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
9% of Norway's laws. NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would take the views of an anti-EU body with a pinch of scepticism:
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Will you include a list of comments by some of the prominent and relatively disinterested establishment figures who are pro leave?
If the Daily Mail had some quotes from "regular" people, do you think that would be representative of the population at large, or what the DM wanted to quote?
Apply to FT.
These quotes were taken from people who had not been particularly selected for the purpose of getting views on Brexit, but on City matters generally. Here they are:
In the FT's own words: "The FT City Network was launched in autumn 2014 as a panel of more than 50 of the City of London’s most influential individuals – from bankers, asset managers and insurers to new-style disrupters and financial technology entrepreneurs. View the heavyweights below, filter by sector and take a quick look at their respective backgrounds"
Unfortunately those of us who can't be bothered to join the FT's mailing list, are unable to read whatever you linked to.
It's a shame though, as this looks interesting.
'Economic migrants not welcome in EU, says Tusk European Council chief says economic migrants will not be allowed to travel north into Germany'.
If the Daily Mail had some quotes from "regular" people, do you think that would be representative of the population at large, or what the DM wanted to quote?
Apply to FT.
These quotes were taken from people who had not been particularly selected for the purpose of getting views on Brexit, but on City matters generally. Here they are:
In the FT's own words: "The FT City Network was launched in autumn 2014 as a panel of more than 50 of the City of London’s most influential individuals – from bankers, asset managers and insurers to new-style disrupters and financial technology entrepreneurs. View the heavyweights below, filter by sector and take a quick look at their respective backgrounds"
The FT still decided who these influential individuals would be. You can, of course, assure us that the FT didn't exclude anybody with Brexit views as not being "influential"?
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
9% of Norway's laws. NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would take the views of an anti-EU body with a pinch of scepticism:
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Fullfact, being just small group of independent researchers might be, you know, WRONG. Its not like their opinions are handed down on tablets of stone.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
9% of Norway's laws. NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would take the views of an anti-EU body with a pinch of scepticism:
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Fullfact, being just small group of independent researchers might be, you know, WRONG. Its not like their opinions are handed down on tablets of stone.
You could always read what they write, think about it then critique it?
France could opt to end the border treaty any time - but the country's interior minister Bernard Cazenouve has said to do so would be "foolhardy" and cause "a humanitarian disaster".
His colleague, economy minister Emmanuel Macron gave a different view in his FT interview, saying of Britain's EU membership: "The day this relationship unravels, migrants will no longer be in Calais."
You could always read what they write, think about it then critique it?
I'm still waiting for your explanation of what the '75% integrated' comment means. Have you read and understood the basis of this calculation or are you just posting it here and assuming it is meaningful?
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
As part of their renegotiation with the UK, I would imagine France would put everything back on the table to make sure they can get as many concessions from the UK as possible.
The Boris vs Osborne debate is interesting as it shows who Boris is really gunning for. I think Boris knows that there is no way he can become PM without serious Cabinet experience, if Leave wins he can make Osborne the fall guy and force his way into the Treasury. That lines him up well for 2018/19/20 when Dave stands down.
While Dave helpfully hangs around as a lame duck while he gains experience?
Cameron is gone if Leave win. That becomes clearer by the day.
If we vote to leave, I think Dave will just about hang on, he will placate the leavers by making Boris and Gove the chancellor and foreign secretary. The main issue is that there is no one to replace Dave. I'm more firmly in the leave camp than most and despite the crap and the lies, I still wouldn't want to remove Dave as PM in the event of a leave vote.
If Leave win, Cameron will go. He would only have been staying on for a year or two more anyway and he won't view it as worth his time and effort to stay. Plus his authority will be shot and enough of the awkward squad will be making his life too difficult.
Which is why he will hand them Osborne and Hammond's heads on a platter. That will be enough, the awkward squad loathe Osborne (they think he isn't a real Tory) and they think Hammond is a traitor.
Why would Cameron want to limp on? He would be, to coin a phrase, in office but not in power. Unless he has a taste for public humiliation I can't see it.
David Cameron will stay post the referendum as a respected Prime Minister but he will appoint a very different cabinet who will be chosen to take into account the result and start the process of healing and ultimately the succession. This will be a time of opportunity for Boris and others to take responsibility for Office and demonstrate their abilities in time for the succession. At present I do not see either Osborne or Boris as Prime Minister material.
You could always read what they write, think about it then critique it?
I'm still waiting for your explanation of what the '75% integrated' comment means. Have you read and understood the basis of this calculation or are you just posting it here and assuming it is meaningful?
I can't provide you with understanding - perhaps if you read the linked article you could arrive at that yourself?
If the Daily Mail had some quotes from "regular" people, do you think that would be representative of the population at large, or what the DM wanted to quote?
Apply to FT.
These quotes were taken from people who had not been particularly selected for the purpose of getting views on Brexit, but on City matters generally. Here they are:
In the FT's own words: "The FT City Network was launched in autumn 2014 as a panel of more than 50 of the City of London’s most influential individuals – from bankers, asset managers and insurers to new-style disrupters and financial technology entrepreneurs. View the heavyweights below, filter by sector and take a quick look at their respective backgrounds"
The FT still decided who these influential individuals would be. You can, of course, assure us that the FT didn't exclude anybody with Brexit views as not being "influential"?
I have no idea what the selection criteria for the FT were. It would seem odd for such a narrow selection criterion to be used, given the wider purpose of the panel.
I see one of the panel is Andrew Tyrie, who so far as I can see remains on the fence even now about the referendum.
On the proposed debate, it's worth emphasising that, according the Telegraph, the suggestion is not Boris vs Osborne, but a multiple line-up such as Boris, IDS, Farage and Galloway vs Osborne, Caroline Lucas, Alan Johnson, and Tim Farron:
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
That'll be the FT that supported the ERM and Euro then.
Bear defecates in wood - shock.
These quotes were from regular attendees at a forum that the FT organises most months. Previous recent subjects have included "Is the outlook all doom?", cybercrime and backstop liquidity facilities. Not so much the FT as people who the FT regards as the great and the good of the City.
And that's exactly the point (and the reason why the Corporation is behaving so frustratingly).
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
"I just tell the truth as I see it"
Hilarious, you simply repeat ad nauseum what Cameron says, even going as far as saying his garbage is impressive. The funny thing is, in the unlikely event of him supporting Leave so would you be now.
On the proposed debate, it's worth emphasising that, according the Telegraph, the suggestion is not Boris vs Osborne, but a multiple line-up such as Boris, IDS, Farage and Galloway vs Osborne, Caroline Lucas, Alan Johnson, and Tim Farron:
And that's exactly the point (and the reason why the Corporation is behaving so frustratingly).
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
Also, for big businesses the cost of implementing extra EU regulations have far less of an impact on their bottom line due to economy of scale
e.g the new EU wide VAT rules on digital sales that came into effect last year. I would imagine for the big companies it had zero noticeable impact beyond a few twiddles of their accounting systems. For small businesses, who only sell small amounts outside of their "home" country it was a pain in the ass.
So you are posting up numbers you don't understand? Very useful.
No, I am posting excerpts from articles (OGH, quite reasonably objects to posting whole articles), with links, so those interested can read the article in depth and draw their own conclusions as to its accuracy.
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
It's not "utter bogus scaremongering", it's a plausible, if medium-to-low probability, scenario.
It wouldn't be some dastardly plot, but a consequence of other decisions.
If, to take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, the Eurozone countries passed a rule (and I know you don't believe this can be done by QMV but it can) that all financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments needed to be in a Eurozone country because that objectively promoted market stability, then we would have a choice to lose a big chunk of the GDP or to join the Euro. That's what people are suggesting when they say "forced into the Euro if we vote Remain"
On the proposed debate, it's worth emphasising that, according the Telegraph, the suggestion is not Boris vs Osborne, but a multiple line-up such as Boris, IDS, Farage and Galloway vs Osborne, Caroline Lucas, Alan Johnson, and Tim Farron:
But why get in the way of the headline - Osborne v Boris. The print media are acting in their own interests and not providing a balanced view of both sides. The broadcast media are better as they are required to be balanced
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
9% of Norway's laws. NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would take the views of an anti-EU body with a pinch of scepticism:
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Fullfact, being just small group of independent researchers might be, you know, WRONG. Its not like their opinions are handed down on tablets of stone.
You could always read what they write, think about it then critique it?
Or is it easier just to attack them?
I read it. I also listened to Andrew Neill yesterday, apparently you didnt.
And that's exactly the point (and the reason why the Corporation is behaving so frustratingly).
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
Also, for big businesses the cost of implementing extra EU regulations have far less of an impact on their bottom line due to economy of scale
e.g the new EU wide VAT rules on digital sales that came into effect last year. I would imagine for the big companies it had zero noticeable impact beyond a few twiddles of their accounting systems. For small businesses, who only sell small amounts outside of their "home" country it was a pain in the ass.
That's what I meant by in-built competitive advantage.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
We would surely accept single market rules as well.
That's what we joined the EEC for in the first place...
Seems to me that after 1992 when the single market was done and dusted, there were all these people, institutions, Eurocrats if you will, who looked at each other and said "now what"? And then proceeded with a myriad other projects all aiming at further and deeper European integration. It continues apace to this day.
"so far and no further" isn't on the ballot paper*, but would probably win IMHO.
* I know Cameron thinks he has pretty much got agreement on this, but it;s bollox as we all know.
You are probably right but I still have a hunch that there might yet be final twist in the tale! I do agree that Trump will stand as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. GOP are in trouble either way - Tea Party Cruz is no certainly no upgrade on Trump, in fact some might say he is a step backwards.
In terms of winning this year, if nominated, I think Trump would have a better chance than Cruz.
Agreed, I think both would lose to Clinton but Trump has a greater chance of upsetting the odds. Depends on how convincing his attempt to move to the centre will be and which policies he chooses to emphasise from here on. Cruz won't even attempt to appeal outside the base.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
That'll be the FT that supported the ERM and Euro then.
Bear defecates in wood - shock.
These quotes were from regular attendees at a forum that the FT organises most months. Previous recent subjects have included "Is the outlook all doom?", cybercrime and backstop liquidity facilities. Not so much the FT as people who the FT regards as the great and the good of the City.
And that's exactly the point (and the reason why the Corporation is behaving so frustratingly).
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
It's not at all impossible to imagine a fork in the road a few years further on where Euro membership becomes a necessary price for continuing in the EU (or perhaps more accurately that the downsides for the second-class group of Euro-refuseniks are so great that it's effectively compulsory). Charles suggests one.
A genuine question for you and some of the other Remainers who consider that the risks of Leave are too great for it to be a serious option: if the choice were to be between joining the Euro now, or leaving the EU, which would you go for?
It's not "utter bogus scaremongering", it's a plausible, if medium-to-low probability, scenario.
It wouldn't be some dastardly plot, but a consequence of other decisions.
If, to take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, the Eurozone countries passed a rule (and I know you don't believe this can be done by QMV but it can) that all financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments needed to be in a Eurozone country because that objectively promoted market stability, then we would have a choice to lose a big chunk of the GDP or to join the Euro. That's what people are suggesting when they say "forced into the Euro if we vote Remain"
You demonstrate my point. Lots of people here lay, with great indignation, into arguments used by Remain (or even points made by completely independent international commentators), calling them bogus or outright lies, but in an entirely one-sided way.
It's very amusing that I get attacked for being allegedly partisan and Europhile (Lord only knows why anyone thinks that, but anyway..), when I'm one of the few here calling out bogus arguments on both sides. And valid arguments, for that matter. How many of our passionate Leavers here have ever admitted the validity of a single argument in favour of staying in the EU compared with (say) the EEA route?
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
May be Mr Meeks is to young to remember what happened over the UK's involvement in the ERM and the FT etc advocating Euro membership?
A genuine question for you and some of the other Remainers who consider that the risks of Leave are too great for it to be a serious option: if the choice were to be between joining the Euro now, or leaving the EU, which would you go for?
It's not "utter bogus scaremongering", it's a plausible, if medium-to-low probability, scenario.
It wouldn't be some dastardly plot, but a consequence of other decisions.
If, to take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, the Eurozone countries passed a rule (and I know you don't believe this can be done by QMV but it can) that all financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments needed to be in a Eurozone country because that objectively promoted market stability, then we would have a choice to lose a big chunk of the GDP or to join the Euro. That's what people are suggesting when they say "forced into the Euro if we vote Remain"
It's very amusing that I get attacked for being allegedly partisan and Europhile (Lord only knows why anyone thinks that, but anyway..), when I'm one of the few here calling out bogus arguments on both sides. And valid arguments, for that matter. How many of our passionate Leavers here have ever admitted the validity of a single argument in favour of staying in the EU compared with (say) the EEA route?
I can see a lot of validity in remaing part of the EU if it were just a trading market.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
He quoted over 50,000 'legal instruments' - which would include things like tests on olive oil - which not being part of the CAP, Norway would have no need to adopt - if you are interested in the challenges of sensibly exploring this try:
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
He quoted over 50,000 'legal instruments' - which would include things like tests on olive oil - which not being part of the CAP, Norway would have no need to adopt - if you are interested in the challenges of sensibly exploring this try:
A genuine question for you and some of the other Remainers who consider that the risks of Leave are too great for it to be a serious option: if the choice were to be between joining the Euro now, or leaving the EU, which would you go for?
Leave the EU, of course. No-brainer.
That's interesting (& thanks for replying). Which leave option do you think could plausibly be achieved with less pain, risk and economic damage than would be involved in joining the Euro?
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
9% of Norway's laws. NINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would take the views of an anti-EU body with a pinch of scepticism:
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Fullfact, being just small group of independent researchers might be, you know, WRONG. Its not like their opinions are handed down on tablets of stone.
You could always read what they write, think about it then critique it?
Or is it easier just to attack them?
I read it. I also listened to Andrew Neill yesterday, apparently you didnt.
Neil quoted 'legal instruments' - which will include very minor regulations - many of which won't apply to a non-CAP member Norway.
'9%' is a good headline for LEAVErs - but its not really very informative.....
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
It's not at all impossible to imagine a fork in the road a few years further on where Euro membership becomes a necessary price for continuing in the EU (or perhaps more accurately that the downsides for the second-class group of Euro-refuseniks are so great that it's effectively compulsory).
This is pretty much what Cameron's reforms are trying to head off. I think better to try them, fight our corner and see how things develop than be defeatist, assume we cannot win and head for the exit.
And that's exactly the point (and the reason why the Corporation is behaving so frustratingly).
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
You'll like this letter to the FT then:
I agree with it, yes. I work for an MNC but try to think like the owner of an SME.
That's interesting (& thanks for replying). Which leave option do you think could plausibly be achieved with less pain, risk and economic damage than would be involved in joining the Euro?
Any of them, I think. Unless things change very dramatically (and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future), joining the Euro would be an absolute no-no IMO.
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
May be Mr Meeks is to young to remember what happened over the UK's involvement in the ERM and the FT etc advocating Euro membership?
I may have misremembered but didn't the FT endorse Kinnock at the 92 GE?
I think Rasmussen have attempted to correct that bias. In the run up to November 2014, they published pretty gloomy numbers for the House, for the Republicans, when in fact the Republicans won easily.
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
May be Mr Meeks is to young to remember what happened over the UK's involvement in the ERM and the FT etc advocating Euro membership?
Mr Meeks has always been an opponent of Britain joining the Euro and can remember the ERM only too clearly.
It's not "utter bogus scaremongering", it's a plausible, if medium-to-low probability, scenario.
It wouldn't be some dastardly plot, but a consequence of other decisions.
If, to take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, the Eurozone countries passed a rule (and I know you don't believe this can be done by QMV but it can) that all financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments needed to be in a Eurozone country because that objectively promoted market stability, then we would have a choice to lose a big chunk of the GDP or to join the Euro. That's what people are suggesting when they say "forced into the Euro if we vote Remain"
You demonstrate my point. Lots of people here lay, with great indignation, into arguments used by Remain (or even points made by completely independent international commentators), calling them bogus or outright lies, but in an entirely one-sided way.
It's very amusing that I get attacked for being allegedly partisan and Europhile (Lord only knows why anyone thinks that, but anyway..), when I'm one of the few here calling out bogus arguments on both sides. And valid arguments, for that matter. How many of our passionate Leavers here have ever admitted the validity of a single argument in favour of staying in the EU compared with (say) the EEA route?
Sorry: you've said it's a bogus argument. I've provided a scenario that explains why it could happen (not *will* but *could*). You've claimed it "demonstrate[s] your point". It doesn't: it's refutes your argument, unless you believe my scenario is either bogus or vanishingly impossible - which is on you to demonstrate.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
He quoted over 50,000 'legal instruments' - which would include things like tests on olive oil - which not being part of the CAP, Norway would have no need to adopt - if you are interested in the challenges of sensibly exploring this try:
Nabavi gives an insightful view of the Cameroons - simply say what you have to, the truth is irrelevant. Cameron's "garbage" was "impressive". Admitting to being dishonest is a strange approach.
I just tell the truth as I see it, pointing out bogus arguments on either side of the issue, in marked contrast to many. For example, has a single Leaver here criticised the utterly bogus scaremongering that we could be forced into the Euro if we vote Remain?
No, we couldn't be forced into it.
We might find ourselves under pressure to join it.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
He quoted over 50,000 'legal instruments' - which would include things like tests on olive oil - which not being part of the CAP, Norway would have no need to adopt - if you are interested in the challenges of sensibly exploring this try:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future will comprise simply a list of relatively disinterested establishment figures, home and abroad, and their comments on the idea of Britain leaving the EU, and the dismissive responses of prominent Leave campaigners. It should be quite a long list.
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
May be Mr Meeks is to young to remember what happened over the UK's involvement in the ERM and the FT etc advocating Euro membership?
Mr Meeks has always been an opponent of Britain joining the Euro and can remember the ERM only too clearly.
Does Mr Meeks agree with Mr Nabavi in considering all the possible leave scenarios as preferable to joining the Euro?
It was interesting to watch the latest pilot of the TipTV Politics show, particularly the final segment featuring OGH, Keiran Pedley and Graham Sharpe of William Hill, discussing the betting angles relating to the EU Referendum.
Keiran Pedley's suggestion that it might be worth considering backing a LEAVE vote for English electors only available from Hills at 7/4, rather than the riskier LEAVE vote for the entire UK+NI, on offer at 9/4.
Running a few hypothetical numbers - based on a total [2015] electorate of 46.205m and assuming that 65% of those across the board choose to vote, i.e. 30.033m.
If we then assume that 70% of those voting did so in favour of REMAIN in the more welfare driven, not to say anti-English countries of the UK, i.e. Scotland, Wales & N.I. and only 50% did so in the case of England itself, this would result in an overall vote of 53.25% REMAIN vs 46.75% LEAVE.
The question from a betting perspective is whether it is worth giving up approximately 22% of the potential gain (175% vs 225%) in order to gain this considerably lower hurdle in terms of the referendum result?
I know that everyone is only interested in the referendum, with the US election lagging a distant second, but there is some other news.
A few months ago there was a lot of discussion on here about a Court of Appeal decision about the application of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in a case where an estranged daughter was provided for out of the estate in direct contradiction of a will that left everything to animal charities. This case is to be heard by the Supreme Court:
Do you know which side is appealing (or perhaps, both sides are?)
The Court of Appeal decision was reasonable, but some of their reasoning was absurd. One of the things the Court needs to weigh up, under the 1975 Act, is "the financial needs of the beneficiaries", In coming to their decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that charity beneficiaries do not have financial needs.
Sorry: you've said it's a bogus argument. I've provided a scenario that explains why it could happen (not *will* but *could*). You've claimed it "demonstrate[s] your point". It doesn't: it's refutes your argument, unless you believe my scenario is either bogus or vanishingly impossible - which is on you to demonstrate.
Well, quite apart from anything else, your scenario would apply equally if we left the EU and joined the EEA - in fact, it's more likely in that scenario, because we'd have lost the institutional protection, influence and voting rights in the matter. You are basically saying that circumstances might change in such a way that it's in our economic interests to join the Euro. That's not being forced to join the Euro as a result of EU membership, and in any case your argument only works if one elevates financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments above all other economic considerations. I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.
In other words, it is both fantastical, and unrelated to the decision at hand. Or 'bogus', as we PBers like to say!
There seems to be a dispute over whether the elimination every 90 seconds approach would happen in the third and final session (of eight drivers, rather than 10). As it's agreed, that would happen, but the bigwigs want to change it because otherwise the session will be a lot quieter because everyone will be saving tyres, or so it's thought.
But change requires agreement. And some teams don't want qualifying to change at all.
Claim: Norway and Switzerland have to accept EU laws despite not being members in order to trade with it.
Conclusion: This is about right. Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access.
Conveniently not mentioning its only a tiny fraction of the laws we have to abide by.
Nope......it does: While emphasising that this isn’t an exact calculation, it concluded that Norway is roughly three quarters integrated into the EU compared to a typical EU member country...... ......Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
I trust as a fact something quoted by Andrew Neil with a source he (married to a Scandanavian) regarded as valid. Also almost 23 hours later it has not been withdrawn or amended/clarified.
He quoted over 50,000 'legal instruments' - which would include things like tests on olive oil - which not being part of the CAP, Norway would have no need to adopt - if you are interested in the challenges of sensibly exploring this try:
Does Mr Meeks agree with Mr Nabavi in considering all the possible leave scenarios as preferable to joining the Euro?
All? No. Many? Yes.
But since Britain would only join the Euro in circumstances where either the Eurozone was a dazzling success or Britain was an economic disaster area, I'm not expecting the problem any time soon.
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I'd have thought if you're going to go down the path of a single currency though then the next step is to have a single european bond set of issuances...
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I'd have thought if you're going to go down the path of a single currency though then the next step is to have a single european bond set of issuances...
Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.
I'd have thought if you're going to go down the path of a single currency though then the next step is to have a single european bond set of issuances...
Willie Penrose has been elected in Longford Westmeath, securing the Labour party's speaking rights in the Dáil and bringing an end to counting in the General Election.
Fine Gael's Peter Burke joins Kevin 'Boxer' Moran and poll topper Robert Troy of Fianna Fáil in filling the four seats in the constituency.
Outgoing Fine Gael TD James Bannon lost his seat with just six votes between himself and his Labour opponent, following a recount which concluded at 5.30am.
The system is close to broken IMHO. Time and again we find our competitors have got ridiculously generic and/or blindingly obvious "patents" past the authorities who have no clue about what they are allowing. A common refrain is "surely they can't claim that as novel??!"
It's like someone who invented the Jammie Dodger then filing for something which prevented anyone from ever again developing any kind of biscuit, cake or generic sweet snack - closest analogy I can find. "It contains sugar - that was our idea" sort of thing
If you check EUR-Lex you will find the total number of regulations introduced is 49,699 and the total number of directives is 3,700 = 55,399 acts, as of the end of 2014
Willie Penrose has been elected in Longford Westmeath, securing the Labour party's speaking rights in the Dáil and bringing an end to counting in the General Election.
Fine Gael's Peter Burke joins Kevin 'Boxer' Moran and poll topper Robert Troy of Fianna Fáil in filling the four seats in the constituency.
Outgoing Fine Gael TD James Bannon lost his seat with just six votes between himself and his Labour opponent, following a recount which concluded at 5.30am.
Willie Penrose has been elected in Longford Westmeath, securing the Labour party's speaking rights in the Dáil and bringing an end to counting in the General Election.
Fine Gael's Peter Burke joins Kevin 'Boxer' Moran and poll topper Robert Troy of Fianna Fáil in filling the four seats in the constituency.
Outgoing Fine Gael TD James Bannon lost his seat with just six votes between himself and his Labour opponent, following a recount which concluded at 5.30am.
FG 50, FF 44, SF 23, Lab 7, AAA-PBP 6, Social Dem 3, Green 2, Independent Alliance 6, Indies 17
What a mess!
Do the independents lean right or left, do you know?
A mixture. They are quite diverse, including some ex-FF amd ex-FG people, some local single-issue activists, and some from the far-left. I'm not sure what the overall balance is.
The system is close to broken IMHO. Time and again we find our competitors have got ridiculously generic and/or blindingly obvious "patents" past the authorities who have no clue about what they are allowing. A common refrain is "surely they can't claim that as novel??!"
It's like someone who invented the Jammie Dodger then filing for something which prevented anyone from ever again developing any kind of biscuit, cake or generic sweet snack - closest analogy I can find. "It contains sugar - that was our idea" sort of thing
Grrrrrr
Some of the genetic patents are even worse
There's a case I know well where a patent was granted for a specific disease plus "all related strains as yet undiscovered".
The product produced by the originator doesn't work well outside the UK and Ireland. But for 10 years they have been preventing a better product entering the Norwegian market (different strain of the disease, undiscovered at the time the patent was granted)
Those without access behind the paywall will probably be unsurprised to note that the consensus was firmly that Brexit was a bad idea. Sample quotes:
Stephen Hester: "I think most would accept that Brexit is unlikely to represent a long-term economic disaster for the UK or the City. However, there is virtually no argument that it would produce a better economic result than staying in, except one — animal spirits. The argument [is implausible] that somehow there is a well of entrepreneurship waiting to rise phoenixlike from an economy liberated from the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy."
Sir Mike Rake: "at best a vote to leave will lead to significant uncertainty, slow up of investment, growth and jobs, and at worst could lead to unnecessary long term economic damage, both to the city and the UK as a whole."
Colm Kelleher: "The fact that so many Europeans can come here so easily to work in the services industries has had a very positive impact on making the City the leading global services centre that it is. And it’s a virtuous circle. As a major global financial centre, and EU’s pre-eminent financial centre, the City is a magnet for the brightest and best from across the continent. If the City’s status diminishes — as it would if the EU’s financial centre of gravity shifts to within the EU — then clearly the flow of talent to London would reduce as it went elsewhere. The virtuous circle would reverse, to the long-term detriment of the City."
These are the same types who predicted (along with the FT) doom and gloom if we didn't join the Euro. You won't mind if I don't take them very seriously, especially Mike Rake, the CBI may as well be called the CEI.
One of the articles that I am planning to run in the near future ...
It seems that Leavers are only interested in the views of other Leavers.
Oh good, I'm looking forward to that.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
May be Mr Meeks is to young to remember what happened over the UK's involvement in the ERM and the FT etc advocating Euro membership?
Mr Meeks has always been an opponent of Britain joining the Euro and can remember the ERM only too clearly.
Thank you sir for the clarity. Older than you look.
If you check EUR-Lex you will find the total number of regulations introduced is 49,699 and the total number of directives is 3,700 = 55,399 acts, as of the end of 2014
Are all 55,399 still in Force?
The EFTA Presentation quotes '10,499 EU Acts incorporated into the EEA Agreement' before noting the 4,677 in force today
So either some have only dropped out of EFTA - or they have dropped out of both EFTA and the EU......
The system is close to broken IMHO. Time and again we find our competitors have got ridiculously generic and/or blindingly obvious "patents" past the authorities who have no clue about what they are allowing. A common refrain is "surely they can't claim that as novel??!"
It's like someone who invented the Jammie Dodger then filing for something which prevented anyone from ever again developing any kind of biscuit, cake or generic sweet snack - closest analogy I can find. "It contains sugar - that was our idea" sort of thing
Grrrrrr
Do you monitor the applications and file oppositions? You can and you should.
While we glance at our screens and watch the migrant problems across the EU dominate the news. Along today comes Donald Tusk one of 3 EU Presidents "Tusk has warned illegal economic migrants against coming to Europe, during a new push to solve the EU migrant crisis."
Is that all there is..... We get a fking Press Release to tackle the tide?
Thank you sir for the clarity. Older than you look.
I can remember, aged 7, the results of the first referendum on the EEC being reported on Nationwide. I remember wondering why Shetland voted Out when everyone else voted in [though I see from looking it up that Western Isles also voted Out].
If you check EUR-Lex you will find the total number of regulations introduced is 49,699 and the total number of directives is 3,700 = 55,399 acts, as of the end of 2014
Are all 55,399 still in Force?
The EFTA Presentation quotes '10,499 EU Acts incorporated into the EEA Agreement' before noting the 4,677 in force today
So either some have only dropped out of EFTA - or they have dropped out of both EFTA and the EU......
Yes they are still in force today, EU-Lex doesn't list laws no longer in force..
It is also, I am sure by complete co-incidence the number mentioned by Andrew Neill yesterday and not disputed by the government minister.
The bulk of those incorporated but not in effect are because there is no automatic read across into national law, it relies on EFTA/EEA governments introducing the laws through their own legal processes, or dragging their heels on it if they are not enthusiastic. Its certainly possible some were dropped by the EU and subsequently by the EFTA/EEA, they mostly tend to be "linked" so if one gets binned by the EU, the other is retired in national law.
If you wanted definitive proof that Corbyn is a Tory plant, this is it.
Jeremy Corbyn has attacked Gordon Brown for an “off-the-books accountancy wheeze” that he says helped cause the financial crisis for NHS hospitals.
He told business leaders “record deficits” in NHS trusts were built up by Mr Brown’s policy of Private Finance Initiative, which rebuilt old hospitals using lengthy contracts with firms.
Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference today, he compared the scheme with dodgy banking practices that led to the 2008 crash.
Sorry: you've said it's a bogus argument. I've provided a scenario that explains why it could happen (not *will* but *could*). You've claimed it "demonstrate[s] your point". It doesn't: it's refutes your argument, unless you believe my scenario is either bogus or vanishingly impossible - which is on you to demonstrate.
Well, quite apart from anything else, your scenario would apply equally if we left the EU and joined the EEA - in fact, it's more likely in that scenario, because we'd have lost the institutional protection, influence and voting rights in the matter. You are basically saying that circumstances might change in such a way that it's in our economic interests to join the Euro. That's not being forced to join the Euro as a result of EU membership, and in any case your argument only works if one elevates financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments above all other economic considerations. I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.
In other words, it is both fantastical, and unrelated to the decision at hand. Or 'bogus', as we PBers like to say!
"Forced to join the Euro" means, to me, being coerced into against our wishes, for example under the threat of invasion. That is obviously so implausible that I stop reading when anyone uses this language.
If one doesn't mean *forced* then one should use some other term.
If you wanted definitive proof that Corbyn is a Tory plant, this is it.
Jeremy Corbyn has attacked Gordon Brown for an “off-the-books accountancy wheeze” that he says helped cause the financial crisis for NHS hospitals.
He told business leaders “record deficits” in NHS trusts were built up by Mr Brown’s policy of Private Finance Initiative, which rebuilt old hospitals using lengthy contracts with firms.
Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference today, he compared the scheme with dodgy banking practices that led to the 2008 crash.
If you wanted definitive proof that Corbyn is a Tory plant, this is it.
Jeremy Corbyn has attacked Gordon Brown for an “off-the-books accountancy wheeze” that he says helped cause the financial crisis for NHS hospitals.
He told business leaders “record deficits” in NHS trusts were built up by Mr Brown’s policy of Private Finance Initiative, which rebuilt old hospitals using lengthy contracts with firms.
Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference today, he compared the scheme with dodgy banking practices that led to the 2008 crash.
'Aside from Greece I actually think the € has actually been a reasonable success.'
I think as a technical achievement you can say it is a considerable success.
But - what about the economic dynamism it was supposed to create?
Has it raised the trend growth rate of the Eurozone countries?
There is no evidence to suggest it has. Rather, that trend growth rate has continued to decline. Trend growth in potential output since 1999 has been around 1.4%, about 1% per year below the previous fifteen years. Productivity growth has slumped.
Has it created the 'zone of stability' it promised? The experience of 2011-12 with a zone-wide sovereign bond market crisis and the ongoing agony of Greece and to a lesser extent Cyprus (where in both cases, remember, the Eurozone has actually negated free capital movement - one of the 'four freedoms' as part of the policies it has imposed) would suggest not.
Sorry: you've said it's a bogus argument. I've provided a scenario that explains why it could happen (not *will* but *could*). You've claimed it "demonstrate[s] your point". It doesn't: it's refutes your argument, unless you believe my scenario is either bogus or vanishingly impossible - which is on you to demonstrate.
Well, quite apart from anything else, your scenario would apply equally if we left the EU and joined the EEA - in fact, it's more likely in that scenario, because we'd have lost the institutional protection, influence and voting rights in the matter. You are basically saying that circumstances might change in such a way that it's in our economic interests to join the Euro. That's not being forced to join the Euro as a result of EU membership, and in any case your argument only works if one elevates financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments above all other economic considerations. I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.
In other words, it is both fantastical, and unrelated to the decision at hand. Or 'bogus', as we PBers like to say!
"Forced to join the Euro" means, to me, being coerced into against our wishes, for example under the threat of invasion. That is obviously so implausible that I stop reading when anyone uses this language.
If one doesn't mean *forced* then one should use some other term.
I think it's used in the same sense as "forced to accept trade treaties on unfavourable terms" etc. etc. - i.e. we could reject, but that would be even worse.
If you wanted definitive proof that Corbyn is a Tory plant, this is it.
Jeremy Corbyn has attacked Gordon Brown for an “off-the-books accountancy wheeze” that he says helped cause the financial crisis for NHS hospitals.
He told business leaders “record deficits” in NHS trusts were built up by Mr Brown’s policy of Private Finance Initiative, which rebuilt old hospitals using lengthy contracts with firms.
Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference today, he compared the scheme with dodgy banking practices that led to the 2008 crash.
He's saying that New Labour and Tory policy are part of the same fabric of wickedness and error. In better hands than Corbyn's that might be a viable approach for Labour.
Am I right in thinking that Boris is going to do as little as possible for the Brexit campaign? Can he really get away with that? If I was briefing against him I'd start calling him McCavity Boris. Failing to lead, disappearing when things get difficult, dithering over which side to take; is Boris just the new Gordon Brown?
Still Brown managed to become Labour leader off the back of it. Are the Tory grassroots similarly thick? Will they really back someone who claims he wants out of the EU and then does almost nothing to bring about that outcome? I'll repeat what I said the other day. If the EU is so important to a great many Tory activists then a remain vote will surely be a traumatic experience. Are they really going to embrace someone who did so little to try and win the referendum for the outters? Won't they see through such blatant politicking?
The views of the Labour leadership matter – and complacency could increase the chances of Britain sleepwalking out of the EU. I’ve no doubt that sitting back and watching civil war in the Tory party is tempting – but to do so in the hope of boosting progressive politics would simply be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
We have many weeks to go in this campaign. I hope that as we head towards June the ‘In’ side – and in particular those of us on the left – take this chance to tell a positive story about the EU; both what it has done, and what – if we work together across Europe – it could do, and it’s potential for bringing about a more socially justice and environmentally sustainable future.
Comments
These calculations suffer from the same flaw as trying to work out how much of UK law comes from the EU. Some laws are very important, and some are insignificant.
Leaving the numbers aside, the overall point the Outside and Inside report makes is that the EU has a great deal of influence over what Norway does.
Here is a suggestion Mr Meeks. First take some time out to analyse why the establishment got the ERM and the Euro wrong. Guilty Men by PETER OBORNE AND FRANCES WEAVER is a useful start on the Euro.
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/
And for those hung up on '65% of our Laws come from Europe, but only 9% of Norway's:
https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1dc27c2-7713-11e4-8273-00144feabdc0.html#axzz41pmahAc6
In the FT's own words: "The FT City Network was launched in autumn 2014 as a panel of more than 50 of the City of London’s most influential individuals – from bankers, asset managers and insurers to new-style disrupters and financial technology entrepreneurs. View the heavyweights below, filter by sector and take a quick look at their respective backgrounds"
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features#5 But we went all over this yesterday in detail, but presumably you didn't like the answer so decided to rehearse it again.
http://www.aecr.eu/less-than-10-of-norways-laws-emanate-from-brussels/
If you are genuinely interested in learning more, the FullFact articles explain why:
We've previously pointed out that this kind of counting exercise is, to some extent, meaningless. We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.
It's a shame though, as this looks interesting.
'Economic migrants not welcome in EU, says Tusk
European Council chief says economic migrants will not be allowed to travel north into Germany'.
Or is it easier just to attack them?
His colleague, economy minister Emmanuel Macron gave a different view in his FT interview, saying of Britain's EU membership: "The day this relationship unravels, migrants will no longer be in Calais."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463
Seems like left hand doesn't know what the right hand is saying.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of what the '75% integrated' comment means. Have you read and understood the basis of this calculation or are you just posting it here and assuming it is meaningful?
I see one of the panel is Andrew Tyrie, who so far as I can see remains on the fence even now about the referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12179637/Boris-Johnson-and-George-Osborne-to-debate-Brexit-in-front-of-12000-strong-audience-48-hours-before-the-referendum.html
They focus on the big global firms, not the smaller brokers and entrepreneur led companies. The split is between the MNCs - who like the EU because it simplifies their operations and gives them an in-built competitve advantage - and the SMEs who see it as limiting their freedom of action and flexibility.
For me it's the SMEs and the entrepreneur led companies that are the future of the UK, not just being a staging post for MNCs who don't pay tax here.
So you are posting up numbers you don't understand? Very useful.
Hilarious, you simply repeat ad nauseum what Cameron says, even going as far as saying his garbage is impressive. The funny thing is, in the unlikely event of him supporting Leave so would you be now.
e.g the new EU wide VAT rules on digital sales that came into effect last year. I would imagine for the big companies it had zero noticeable impact beyond a few twiddles of their accounting systems. For small businesses, who only sell small amounts outside of their "home" country it was a pain in the ass.
Kamal Ahmed
John Longworth: The EU is not capable of reform. Possible brighter future outside EU #BCCConf
You appear interested in doing neither.
Hopefully it will be as funny as the Bash Street Kids or Dennis the Menace.
It wouldn't be some dastardly plot, but a consequence of other decisions.
If, to take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, the Eurozone countries passed a rule (and I know you don't believe this can be done by QMV but it can) that all financial trading/issuance involving Euro denominated instruments needed to be in a Eurozone country because that objectively promoted market stability, then we would have a choice to lose a big chunk of the GDP or to join the Euro. That's what people are suggesting when they say "forced into the Euro if we vote Remain"
@JournoSteve: Right, so the EU referendum is now officially worse than the #indyref.
That's what we joined the EEC for in the first place...
Seems to me that after 1992 when the single market was done and dusted, there were all these people, institutions, Eurocrats if you will, who looked at each other and said "now what"? And then proceeded with a myriad other projects all aiming at further and deeper European integration. It continues apace to this day.
"so far and no further" isn't on the ballot paper*, but would probably win IMHO.
* I know Cameron thinks he has pretty much got agreement on this, but it;s bollox as we all know.
You are probably right but I still have a hunch that there might yet be final twist in the tale!
I do agree that Trump will stand as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. GOP are in trouble either way - Tea Party Cruz is no certainly no upgrade on Trump, in fact some might say he is a step backwards.
In terms of winning this year, if nominated, I think Trump would have a better chance than Cruz.
Agreed, I think both would lose to Clinton but Trump has a greater chance of upsetting the odds. Depends on how convincing his attempt to move to the centre will be and which policies he chooses to emphasise from here on. Cruz won't even attempt to appeal outside the base.
A genuine question for you and some of the other Remainers who consider that the risks of Leave are too great for it to be a serious option: if the choice were to be between joining the Euro now, or leaving the EU, which would you go for?
It's very amusing that I get attacked for being allegedly partisan and Europhile (Lord only knows why anyone thinks that, but anyway..), when I'm one of the few here calling out bogus arguments on both sides. And valid arguments, for that matter. How many of our passionate Leavers here have ever admitted the validity of a single argument in favour of staying in the EU compared with (say) the EEA route?
https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/
'9%' is a good headline for LEAVErs - but its not really very informative.....
This is pretty much what Cameron's reforms are trying to head off. I think better to try them, fight our corner and see how things develop than be defeatist, assume we cannot win and head for the exit.
- Quoted figures vary wildly from under 10% to 70%.
- It's possible to justify any measure between about 15% to 50% depending on which definition of 'UK law' you look at.
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
It's very amusing that I get attacked for being allegedly partisan and Europhile (Lord only knows why anyone thinks that, but anyway..)
This just gets funnier all the time.
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
We might find ourselves under pressure to join it.
Who are they, why do you believe they are right, aside from because they agree with you ?
***** BETTING POST *****
It was interesting to watch the latest pilot of the TipTV Politics show, particularly the final segment featuring OGH, Keiran Pedley and Graham Sharpe of William Hill, discussing the betting angles relating to the EU Referendum.
Keiran Pedley's suggestion that it might be worth considering backing a LEAVE vote for English electors only available from Hills at 7/4, rather than the riskier LEAVE vote for the entire UK+NI, on offer at 9/4.
Running a few hypothetical numbers - based on a total [2015] electorate of 46.205m and assuming that 65% of those across the board choose to vote, i.e. 30.033m.
If we then assume that 70% of those voting did so in favour of REMAIN in the more welfare driven, not to say anti-English countries of the UK, i.e. Scotland, Wales & N.I. and only 50% did so in the case of England itself, this would result in an overall vote of 53.25% REMAIN vs 46.75% LEAVE.
The question from a betting perspective is whether it is worth giving up approximately 22% of the potential gain (175% vs 225%) in order to gain this considerably lower hurdle in terms of the referendum result?
Answers on a postcard please!
The Court of Appeal decision was reasonable, but some of their reasoning was absurd. One of the things the Court needs to weigh up, under the 1975 Act, is "the financial needs of the beneficiaries", In coming to their decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that charity beneficiaries do not have financial needs.
So long as that currency is the pound and the Bank of England is in control and is legally obliged to favour the UK over everyone else.
In other words, it is both fantastical, and unrelated to the decision at hand. Or 'bogus', as we PBers like to say!
There seems to be a dispute over whether the elimination every 90 seconds approach would happen in the third and final session (of eight drivers, rather than 10). As it's agreed, that would happen, but the bigwigs want to change it because otherwise the session will be a lot quieter because everyone will be saving tyres, or so it's thought.
But change requires agreement. And some teams don't want qualifying to change at all.
It's a shade piss-ups and breweries.
https://mediacentre.epo.org/razuna/assets/1/48E87A7B232941C28C61EBF14484744C/img/B64629C393A543C0A5FF7254992862F9/EPO_2015_Applications_per_capita.jpg
This is no-one's fault but our own.
Comparing the 75% and 9% numbers is misleading, because they are referring to different things.....
But since Britain would only join the Euro in circumstances where either the Eurozone was a dazzling success or Britain was an economic disaster area, I'm not expecting the problem any time soon.
I'd have thought if you're going to go down the path of a single currency though then the next step is to have a single european bond set of issuances...
It's been awful for Southern Europe.
Willie Penrose has been elected in Longford Westmeath, securing the Labour party's speaking rights in the Dáil and bringing an end to counting in the General Election.
Fine Gael's Peter Burke joins Kevin 'Boxer' Moran and poll topper Robert Troy of Fianna Fáil in filling the four seats in the constituency.
Outgoing Fine Gael TD James Bannon lost his seat with just six votes between himself and his Labour opponent, following a recount which concluded at 5.30am.
http://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/2016/0303/772242-james-bannon-eliminated/
FG 50, FF 44, SF 23, Lab 7, AAA-PBP 6, Social Dem 3, Green 2, Independent Alliance 6, Indies 17
What a mess!
The system is close to broken IMHO. Time and again we find our competitors have got ridiculously generic and/or blindingly obvious "patents" past the authorities who have no clue about what they are allowing. A common refrain is "surely they can't claim that as novel??!"
It's like someone who invented the Jammie Dodger then filing for something which prevented anyone from ever again developing any kind of biscuit, cake or generic sweet snack - closest analogy I can find. "It contains sugar - that was our idea" sort of thing
Grrrrrr
A quick glance at the EFTA site reveals this document
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/eea/seminars/eea-a15/2015-09-02-How_EU_law_becomes_EEA_law.pdf 4,677 as a percentage of 55,399 is 8.4%
It is now 2016, so 9% sounds entirely reasonable.
Yes, I think that's correct.
I'd expect support for the € over the Deutschmark with German exporters is pretty much 100%.
There's a case I know well where a patent was granted for a specific disease plus "all related strains as yet undiscovered".
The product produced by the originator doesn't work well outside the UK and Ireland. But for 10 years they have been preventing a better product entering the Norwegian market (different strain of the disease, undiscovered at the time the patent was granted)
The EFTA Presentation quotes '10,499 EU Acts incorporated into the EEA Agreement' before noting the 4,677 in force today
So either some have only dropped out of EFTA - or they have dropped out of both EFTA and the EU......
Is that all there is..... We get a fking Press Release to tackle the tide?
It is also, I am sure by complete co-incidence the number mentioned by Andrew Neill yesterday and not disputed by the government minister.
The bulk of those incorporated but not in effect are because there is no automatic read across into national law, it relies on EFTA/EEA governments introducing the laws through their own legal processes, or dragging their heels on it if they are not enthusiastic. Its certainly possible some were dropped by the EU and subsequently by the EFTA/EEA, they mostly tend to be "linked" so if one gets binned by the EU, the other is retired in national law.
Jeremy Corbyn has attacked Gordon Brown for an “off-the-books accountancy wheeze” that he says helped cause the financial crisis for NHS hospitals.
He told business leaders “record deficits” in NHS trusts were built up by Mr Brown’s policy of Private Finance Initiative, which rebuilt old hospitals using lengthy contracts with firms.
Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference today, he compared the scheme with dodgy banking practices that led to the 2008 crash.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-slams-gordon-brown-over-nhs-funding-a3194661.html
If one doesn't mean *forced* then one should use some other term.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474470/Two-women-fire-weapons-street-barricaded-government-building-new-terrorist-attack-caught-camera-Turkey.html
I think as a technical achievement you can say it is a considerable success.
But - what about the economic dynamism it was supposed to create?
Has it raised the trend growth rate of the Eurozone countries?
There is no evidence to suggest it has. Rather, that trend growth rate has continued to decline. Trend growth in potential output since 1999 has been around 1.4%, about 1% per year below the previous fifteen years. Productivity growth has slumped.
Has it created the 'zone of stability' it promised? The experience of 2011-12 with a zone-wide sovereign bond market crisis and the ongoing agony of Greece and to a lesser extent Cyprus (where in both cases, remember, the Eurozone has actually negated free capital movement - one of the 'four freedoms' as part of the policies it has imposed) would suggest not.
They could always claim asylum....
Still Brown managed to become Labour leader off the back of it. Are the Tory grassroots similarly thick? Will they really back someone who claims he wants out of the EU and then does almost nothing to bring about that outcome? I'll repeat what I said the other day. If the EU is so important to a great many Tory activists then a remain vote will surely be a traumatic experience. Are they really going to embrace someone who did so little to try and win the referendum for the outters? Won't they see through such blatant politicking?
The views of the Labour leadership matter – and complacency could increase the chances of Britain sleepwalking out of the EU. I’ve no doubt that sitting back and watching civil war in the Tory party is tempting – but to do so in the hope of boosting progressive politics would simply be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
We have many weeks to go in this campaign. I hope that as we head towards June the ‘In’ side – and in particular those of us on the left – take this chance to tell a positive story about the EU; both what it has done, and what – if we work together across Europe – it could do, and it’s potential for bringing about a more socially justice and environmentally sustainable future.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-the-left-doesnt-wake-up-soon-it-could-be-responsible-for-brexit/