For me, today,the biggest OUT argument is the lack of any EU political and journalist culture. There simply is no one holding it to account. National govts get all the scrutiny. And the EU largely escapes.
It's possible that something might emerge in the same way as the NYTimes can hold the US federal govt to account, but it's a long way off.
I don't buy arguments about sovereignty at all.
Not in any way being funny Jonathan but isn't your first point which you make in support of Leave actually the same as your second point to a large extent which you disregard. Surely it is the very lack of sovereignty as we would understand it in the UK context which leads to the lack of accountability at the EU level.
The only two ways to deal with the lack of accountability it seems to me would be either to integrate completely into a single political entity - a single state - or to leave entirely. Both would serve pretty much the same purpose of aligning accountability and power in one place.
"Slovakia's leftist-nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico has won the general election but lost his parliamentary majority, almost complete results show. [snip]
Mr Fico has vowed not to accept "one single Muslim" migrant."
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
Maybe so. As I subsequently explained, that wasn't my point - my point was in politics people will make claims, sometimes unsubstantiated, and even when disproven they don't get punished because the public wants to believe it, or do regardless. It happens on all sides, I don't approve of it even if it 'helps' my side, it just doesn't 'matter' in a tactical sense, necessarily. Personally, I think the hysteria of the Leave side is even worse than Remain at times, and certainly just as self righteous, but I still think the overall Leave argument is stronger, if not on this particular point.
I don't quite know why the distinction seems hard for people to grasp.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
@PickardJE: Odd that @BBCr4today is reporting Boris theory for Longworth suspension without explaining actual reason: he breached BCC neutral position.
But, but, that doesn't fit the Cameron betrayal narrative...
The big gaps: Remain lacks a prominent Labour spokesman who is GETTING COVERAGE. Alan J needs to stir things up, say something controversial. Remain will lose unless Labour voters take an interest. Leave lacks a SERIOUS spokesman who people have heard of and don't dislike. You want wacky? They can oblige in spades - Boris, Farage, Galloway. But their only serious front figure is Gove, and people either don't know who he is or don't like him.
On the whole, I think Remain needs the debate more than Leave.
Cameron's referendum strategic is almost Pyrrhic (except that Pyrrhus wanted to win the war, not merely battles). It's foolish, short-sighted and really quite stupid. Cameron's riling up the backbenches and sceptics, and making it likelier for a sceptic to do well in the contest to succeed him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, by the 'other' Turkey story, d'you mean one beside the state occupation of a newspaper and, if so, what was it?
The constant problems the eurosceptic "bastards" have caused in the Tory party for 25 years are very similar to the problems the Tea Party activists have caused in the GOP. Very vocal groups with numerous obsessives amongst them that are a turn-off to other voters particularly on the centre ground..
So far the Tories have done better at overcoming the handicap but they have gone a very strong position post Corbyn to ferrets fighting in a sack in the space of 6 months.
We now have a dysfunctional government to add to our dysfunctional opposition!
Those 'bastards' represent at least half if not the majority of the Tory party on current polling evidence.
Besides quoting Major - the man who so fundamentally misunderstood the EU that he allowed them to screw him over and then wrote them a letter moaning about it - is not exactly the best way to make your case. It is a shame there weren't more of the 'bastards' around at the time or Major might not have been made to look such a complete fool.
I wasn't calling them "bastards" hence the inverted commas. I was pointing out how they undermine the Tories in the same way the Tea Party do in US.
They don't "undermine" the Tories. They ARE the Tories. That's the point. I'm not even a Tory but I can see that it is solidly eurosceptic, and Cameron has now revealed himself to be as europhile as Heseltine, as the FT gleefully and approvingly put it last week.
Cameron and his clique are the isolates, not the sceptics. And Cameron is a lame duck, gone before 2020 whatever happens.
The difference being that Heseltine has always been open about his EUphilia while Cameron postured as an EUsceptic to win the party leadership.
I'd also say that Heseltine is genuine in his EUphilia whereas Cameron loves the EU because it allows scope for conference going, 'saving the world' etc.
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
Cameron has suffered a nervous collapse since Johnson's avowal for Britain's sovereignty. That alone is sufficient for the cause.
Thought the other week that Boris somehow has lost "it".
Funny thing politics.
I think his style is best in sound bytes, in short doses. Some cutting remarks and gags wrapped up in a natural seeming sort of bumbly bluster, it doesn't seem the polished presentation of a political animal, even though he is one. If put under pressure it can seem flustered and inconsistent, and if it goes on too long harder to listen to as well.
I think that's about right. If he wants the big job he's going to need some more media training. He doesn't have to be great, just adequate, because he does have a personability which is utterly absent in most politicians, and that is very much the taste of the moment, from Trump to Corbyn to Putin, Chavez and Farron.
Also recall that his big rival for the job is Osborne. This man.
Boris in interviews is the transfixing spectacle of an elephant crossing Niagara falls on a tightrope. You have no idea how he got there, or even why he's doing it, but whilst he might sway wildly in the slightest of breezes, he manages to somehow stay on the wire.
"Slovakia's leftist-nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico has won the general election but lost his parliamentary majority, almost complete results show. [snip]
Mr Fico has vowed not to accept "one single Muslim" migrant."
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G?
He was pretty much the definitive source on what the EU would agree to with respect to the Greek palaver.
Yet he has been overruled by Merkel on immigration, severally.
Besides, he really is just a politician, and one who REALLY wants the UK to stay in Europe, not least cause Germany can't afford to fund the show on her own.
If they can't afford to fund the show on her own, doesn't it give weight to the likelihood of Germany playing hardball to keep the UK contributing after Brexit?
Germany can't play hardball because of its trade surplus with Britain
I don't think anyone's going to have the luxury of playing hardball. Everyone will want an agreement to avoid inconveniencing their own people for no good reason, but they're going to have to optimize for how to get the bastard thing ratified by all the member states in a reasonable time-frame.
As a Leaver, the one thing that concerns me is not a trade deal in goods; if Mexico and South Korea can get one, so can we. Rather, does any country outside the single market have full access to the EU services market? If not, then I think Leave has to focus on EEA as the model to follow.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
It doesn't demolish it at all.
It leave us with a choice:
(i) agree a trade deal per Schauble with the pros and cons (ii) negotiate a different deal, in which we would have to give something up to restrict free movement (which may not be possible) (iii) or don't have a trade deal and, as the US and other markets do, rely on the WTO rules
But that's a choice that can be made by our democratically elected government.
The people should only be consulted on the most significant issues (betraying my age, I'd say Super Class 1 issues)
"Slovakia's leftist-nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico has won the general election but lost his parliamentary majority, almost complete results show. [snip]
Mr Fico has vowed not to accept "one single Muslim" migrant."
Is funny, I've been speaking to a white English Doctor who has spent a few months in Pakistan.
He said one of the reasons immigrants want to come to the UK, is the language, and also the lack of racism in this country. That the UK is very welcoming and tolerant, unlike other EU countries (which is backed up by their relatives in the UK)
It is entirely possible in 2020 the Tory Leader and PM is Sajid Javid and the Leader of the Opposition is Sadiq Khan, and most of the country will only judge them on their ability not their skin colour nor their religion.
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
Cameron has suffered a nervous collapse since Johnson's avowal for Britain's sovereignty. That alone is sufficient for the cause.
Boris is good with people, which is not something you can say about most politicians. Get him out meeting people in general, no-one on the Remain side is good at that.
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
If you believe Dave "I sure would" Cameron, and his amazing marzipan "deal", then you are badly placed to identify a lie. To put it politely.
REMAIN would have won a referendum had it taken place a year ago, the so-called negotiation was a sop to UKIP who were never going to like it whatever happened. It was a charade to keep UKIP quite before the GE. Otherwise known as politics.
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like. We would have been better working with like-minded groups to constructively bring about reform rather than stropping around.
Given how little the other 27 have given so far I am all ears to know how we are going to pull off this wonderful no-immigration trade deal with them after we leave.
Longworth's suspension by the BCC is bullying from the Remain camp. He said that the UK "could" be better off economically in the long-term outside the EU. That is a neutral statement - it would have been biased towards Brexit only if he has used the word "would" instead of "could". He upset the establishment by merely suggesting that the economic future of the UK would not necessarily be worse outside the EU - that mere suggestion appears to be heresy to the "great & good" of Remain.
I suspect that there will be another 4 months of this denigration of the concept of Brexit as a "loony" idea, followed by a substantial majority for Remain on 23/6/16. The public will not be allowed to consider the real question - do they wish the UK to end up as a far flung relatively impoverished province of a Großdeutsches Reich?
The project towards ever closer union cannot be stopped by the UK if it remains on the EU train. Concessions negotiated with difficulty vis-à-vis the EU are abrogated a few years later, e.g. the opt-out from the Social Chapter. The same will apply to the tiny concessions that DC recently obtained in his negotiations.
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
Cameron has suffered a nervous collapse since Johnson's avowal for Britain's sovereignty. That alone is sufficient for the cause.
Cameron's nervous collapse helps to explain his imitation of Reek in his meeting with Hollande.
Cameron's referendum strategic is almost Pyrrhic (except that Pyrrhus wanted to win the war, not merely battles). It's foolish, short-sighted and really quite stupid. Cameron's riling up the backbenches and sceptics, and making it likelier for a sceptic to do well in the contest to succeed him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, by the 'other' Turkey story, d'you mean one beside the state occupation of a newspaper and, if so, what was it?
The constant problems the eurosceptic "bastards" have caused in the Tory party for 25 years are very similar to the problems the Tea Party activists have caused in the GOP. Very vocal groups with numerous obsessives amongst them that are a turn-off to other voters particularly on the centre ground..
So far the Tories have done better at overcoming the handicap but they have gone a very strong position post Corbyn to ferrets fighting in a sack in the space of 6 months.
We now have a dysfunctional government to add to our dysfunctional opposition!
Those 'bastards' represent at least half if not the majority of the Tory party on current polling evidence.
Besides quoting Major - the man who so fundamentally misunderstood the EU that he allowed them to screw him over and then wrote them a letter moaning about it - is not exactly the best way to make your case. It is a shame there weren't more of the 'bastards' around at the time or Major might not have been made to look such a complete fool.
I wasn't calling them "bastards" hence the inverted commas. I was pointing out how they undermine the Tories in the same way the Tea Party do in US.
They don't "undermine" the Tories. They ARE the Tories. That's the point. I'm not even a Tory but I can see that it is solidly eurosceptic, and Cameron has now revealed himself to be as europhile as Heseltine, as the FT gleefully and approvingly put it last week.
Cameron and his clique are the isolates, not the sceptics. And Cameron is a lame duck, gone before 2020 whatever happens.
No it isn't MP's are split 162-126 last time I checked and the last poll Tory voters were slightly in favour. The membership are the only solidly eurosceptic element in the party - and there about as representative of the world at large as their Labour counterparts.
Longworth's suspension by the BCC is bullying from the Remain camp. He said that the UK "could" be better off economically in the long-term outside the EU. That is a neutral statement - it would have been biased towards Brexit only if he has used the word "would" instead of "could". He upset the establishment by merely suggesting that the economic future of the UK would not necessarily be worse outside the EU - that mere suggestion appears to be heresy to the "great & good" of Remain.
I suspect that there will be another 4 months of this denigration of the concept of Brexit as a "loony" idea, followed by a substantial majority for Remain on 23/6/16. The public will not be allowed to consider the real question - do they wish the UK to end up as a far flung relatively impoverished province of a Großdeutsches Reich?
The project towards ever closer union cannot be stopped by the UK if it remains on the EU train. Concessions negotiated with difficulty vis-à-vis the EU are abrogated a few years later, e.g. the opt-out from the Social Chapter. The same will apply to the tiny concessions that DC recently obtained in his negotiations.
People like you posting about a 'Großdeutsches Reich' are the reason Leave will lose this referendum. In what way does being part of the EU remotely resemble being part of occupied Europe?
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G?
He was pretty much the definitive source on what the EU would agree to with respect to the Greek palaver.
Yet he has been overruled by Merkel on immigration, severally.
Besides, he really is just a politician, and one who REALLY wants the UK to stay in Europe, not least cause Germany can't afford to fund the show on her own.
If they can't afford to fund the show on her own, doesn't it give weight to the likelihood of Germany playing hardball to keep the UK contributing after Brexit?
Germany can't play hardball because of its trade surplus with Britain
I don't think anyone's going to have the luxury of playing hardball. Everyone will want an agreement to avoid inconveniencing their own people for no good reason, but they're going to have to optimize for how to get the bastard thing ratified by all the member states in a reasonable time-frame.
@PickardJE: Odd that @BBCr4today is reporting Boris theory for Longworth suspension without explaining actual reason: he breached BCC neutral position.
But, but, that doesn't fit the Cameron betrayal narrative...
Ah, undecided Scott P with his 783rd pro-REMAIN comment in a row.
I can accept the mad europhiles on here who admit their perversion. It's those who affect some lofty neutrality that are emetic.
everyone knows Scott is a rabid unionist europhile Tory plan(t)k. He thinks he is fooling people , LOL
Not a turnip then? :
Long way up for him to reach that level, vegetable matter would be stretching it
For me, today,the biggest OUT argument is the lack of any EU political and journalist culture. There simply is no one holding it to account. National govts get all the scrutiny. And the EU largely escapes.
It's possible that something might emerge in the same way as the NYTimes can hold the US federal govt to account, but it's a long way off.
I don't buy arguments about sovereignty at all.
They're really two sides of the same coin - how do you ensure that those with power are held to account.
But the democratic accountability point is critical to me.
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
No, he's still am asset. Just not in the way you're framing it. He's like a figurehead. He's also the most electorally successful Tory after Cameron, and the most popular.
His move to LEAVE made it respectable for lots of others. And he's clearly positioning himself to lead a more eurosceptic Tory party after a narrow REMAIN win. Quite a likely scenario.
Boris's leadership chances were the prime driver of him coming out for LEAVE. He's not a true believer which is why he makes such a hash of interviews on the subject
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
Miss CycleFree, I shall be publishing your guest thread around 6.30pm.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
It doesn't demolish it at all.
It leave us with a choice:
(i) agree a trade deal per Schauble with the pros and cons (ii) negotiate a different deal, in which we would have to give something up to restrict free movement (which may not be possible) (iii) or don't have a trade deal and, as the US and other markets do, rely on the WTO rules
But that's a choice that can be made by our democratically elected government.
The people should only be consulted on the most significant issues (betraying my age, I'd say Super Class 1 issues)
Its noticeable that PB's 'business people' don't see leaving the EU as the economic disaster that the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters do.
I wish Andrew Marr would SHUT UP and let Boris finish a bloody sentence.
Have to admit Boris doesn't help himself, he is such a poor speaker. Would struggle massively at the despatch box. PMQs would have to last two hours.
Marr is frustratingly like that with most of his interviews but Boris is just hopeless - and to think he may be Prime Minister
He's always been bad at interviews and always been bad at debates. Yet he has a spontaneous charisma seldom found elsewhere, and is very smart. It's an odd combination.
The question is whether this strange mix of skills will be enough to take him to Downing St.
or indeed will be the asset he was trumpeted as to LEAVE.
Cameron has suffered a nervous collapse since Johnson's avowal for Britain's sovereignty. That alone is sufficient for the cause.
Cameron's nervous collapse helps to explain his imitation of Reek in his meeting with Hollande.
I remember Samantha Cameron saying that her job was to see her husband leave No.10 sane. I fear that she has failed.
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
Miss CycleFree, I shall be publishing your guest thread around 6.30pm.
It is an excellent read, I'm going to insist by using all my charm that she becomes a regular PB thread writer
As a Leaver, the one thing that concerns me is not a trade deal in goods; if Mexico and South Korea can get one, so can we. Rather, does any country outside the single market have full access to the EU services market? If not, then I think Leave has to focus on EEA as the model to follow.
As I've said before the irony is that the service dominated economy bequeathed to us by Thatcher and Lawson is one of the biggest hindrances to leaving.
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
If you believe Dave "I sure would" Cameron, and his amazing marzipan "deal", then you are badly placed to identify a lie. To put it politely.
REMAIN would have won a referendum had it taken place a year ago, the so-called negotiation was a sop to UKIP who were never going to like it whatever happened. It was a charade to keep UKIP quite before the GE. Otherwise known as politics.
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like.
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
Miss CycleFree, I shall be publishing your guest thread around 6.30pm.
It is an excellent read, I'm going to insist by using all my charm that she becomes a regular PB thread writer
How many lawyers would that make it?
Three regular ones. If we could get Sean Fear back, would be four.
I have reduced my exposure to the RepNom market but increased my green on Trump. I am lovin this.
For the nomination or POTUS?
Nomination.
I traded bady a week ago so I am doing worse than I was but I've gone from
Trump +1 Cruz+6.5 Rubio-1 Field 0
To
Trump+2 Cruz+.5 Ryan/Romeny +.5 Field 0
Given I think Trump has this locked up I am happy with where I am.
You didn't trade that badly by the looks of it.
The thing I worry about with the nomination is trump playing games.
Imagine in a couple of weeks - he's left cruz as the last anti-trump standing and it's looking like he may struggle at the convention. Even if he wins, he'll probably get unenthusiastic support from the GOP election machine...
Why not preemptively stick 2 fingers up to the establishment, leave the nutter in place to the right of him and run a shamelessly populist campaign?
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
Miss CycleFree, I shall be publishing your guest thread around 6.30pm.
It is an excellent read, I'm going to insist by using all my charm that she becomes a regular PB thread writer
How many lawyers would that make it?
Three regular ones. If we could get Sean Fear back, would be four.
Don't think @DavidHerdson is a lawyer, so at least you'd only be at 60%...
EU Facts: What would leaving the EU mean for expats? Would Britain leaving the European Union see British expatriates deported en masse? What happens to their property? We answer your questions
"I’m driving my yacht tender through the billionaire’s bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer. It’s only 11am but my wife has already cracked the Veuve Clicquot. If I spin the speedboat 360 degrees I can see the former mansions of Gianni Agnelli, Keith Richards and Jean Cocteau".
Cameron's referendum strategic is almost Pyrrhic (except that Pyrrhus wanted to win the war, not merely battles). It's foolish, short-sighted and really quite stupid. Cameron's riling up the backbenches and sceptics, and making it likelier for a sceptic to do well in the contest to succeed him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, by the 'other' Turkey story, d'you mean one beside the state occupation of a newspaper and, if so, what was it?
The constant problems the eurosceptic "bastards" have caused in the Tory party for 25 years are very similar to the problems the Tea Party activists have caused in the GOP. Very vocal groups with numerous obsessives amongst them that are a turn-off to other voters particularly on the centre ground..
So far the Tories have done better at overcoming the handicap but they have gone a very strong position post Corbyn to ferrets fighting in a sack in the space of 6 months.
We now have a dysfunctional government to add to our dysfunctional opposition!
Those 'bastards' represent at least half if not the majority of the Tory party on current polling evidence.
Besides quoting Major - the man who so fundamentally misunderstood the EU that he allowed them to screw him over and then wrote them a letter moaning about it - is not exactly the best way to make your case. It is a shame there weren't more of the 'bastards' around at the time or Major might not have been made to look such a complete fool.
I wasn't calling them "bastards" hence the inverted commas. I was pointing out how they undermine the Tories in the same way the Tea Party do in US.
The tories have been able to divest themselves of the tea party rump over to Farage - who from his looks seems to be on 3 bottles of plonk a day - and gain a thinking element from the centre. Enough to still have a majority. We will have to see how objective PB Party opinion is in the long run.
I have reduced my exposure to the RepNom market but increased my green on Trump. I am lovin this.
For the nomination or POTUS?
Nomination.
I traded bady a week ago so I am doing worse than I was but I've gone from
Trump +1 Cruz+6.5 Rubio-1 Field 0
To
Trump+2 Cruz+.5 Ryan/Romeny +.5 Field 0
Given I think Trump has this locked up I am happy with where I am.
You didn't trade that badly by the looks of it.
The thing I worry about with the nomination is trump playing games.
Imagine in a couple of weeks - he's left cruz as the last anti-trump standing and it's looking like he may struggle at the convention. Even if he wins, he'll probably get unenthusiastic support from the GOP election machine...
Why not preemptively stick 2 fingers up to the establishment, leave the nutter in place to the right of him and run a shamelessly populist campaign?
If we are going to discuss the political implications of Boris' dirty tricks claim, worth knowing that serious journalists think it's bollocks.
And if we are betting on Cameron's successor, worth knowing the commentariat view (and senior Tories) that Boris had a shocker
FWIW I didn't see it like at all. Thought Boris was on good form and put things in terms the layman can understand. Marr was excruciating with his interruptions. But I'm 100% out, so maybe I'm biased. But nonetheless I was pleased by his performance.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
ScottP
Might I ask what employment you have ?
Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.
I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.
Why?
Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
Germany is the biggest country in the EU and its economic heartland. My use of the term Großdeutsches Reich is merely a figure of speech and not an implication that the EU is or will become a totalitarian state in the way that Germany was for many years in the 20th century. However, no member of the EU can now effectively oppose German wishes.
Cameron's referendum strategic is almost Pyrrhic (except that Pyrrhus wanted to win the war, not merely battles). It's foolish, short-sighted and really quite stupid. Cameron's riling up the backbenches and sceptics, and making it likelier for a sceptic to do well in the contest to succeed him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, by the 'other' Turkey story, d'you mean one beside the state occupation of a newspaper and, if so, what was it?
The co
We now have a dysfunctional government to add to our dysfunctional opposition!
Those 'bastards' represent at least half if not the majority of the Tory party on current polling evidence.
Besides quoting Major - the man who so fundamentally misunderstood the EU that he allowed them to screw him over and then wrote them a letter moaning about it - is not exactly the best way to make your case. It is a shame there weren't more of the 'bastards' around at the time or Major might not have been made to look such a complete fool.
I wasn't calling them "bastards" hence the inverted commas. I was pointing out how they undermine the Tories in the same way the Tea Party do in US.
They don't "undermine" the Tories. They ARE the Tories. That's the point. I'm not even a Tory but I can see that it is solidly eurosceptic, and Cameron has now revealed himself to be as europhile as Heseltine, as the FT gleefully and approvingly put it last week.
Cameron and his clique are the isolates, not the sceptics. And Cameron is a lame duck, gone before 2020 whatever happens.
No it isn't MP's are split 162-126 last time I checked and the last poll Tory voters were slightly in favour. The membership are the only solidly eurosceptic element in the party - and there about as representative of the world at large as their Labour counterparts.
FFS. Duh.
That's 130 MPs REBELLING against their own prime minister. You don't think the figure might have been way higher if Cameron was, say, neutral on this issue? And not issuing sinister threats, via, his Chancellor, that anyone who wants a "future career in the party" should opt for REMAIN?
As for the voters, it don't matter. The members choose the leader, in the final round. It's very hard to see beyond Boris v Osborne. It won't be May or Javid, they are screwed now. Gove is an outside possibility.
No need for insults, I was responding to you risible assertion about the eurosceptics that "They ARE the Tories".
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
And there is some inner logic to this if we leave and join EFTA EEA like Norway. If we stay part of the single market and follow single market rules and free movement. And stay out of Schengen - unlike Norway of course which has 15% immigrant population.
But the main - well lets face it the only - argument Leave are wielding is an anti immigrant one. The big scare of Leave's project fear of the entire population of Syria lining up to migrate to the UK.
IIRC you're undecided so far. However, you seem pretty keen on Remain given your posts.
How would you describe your view right now 80/20 Remain?
What would influence you towards Leave? <blockquote
I am very perplexed and not more than 60/40 remain. The popular reason for leaving is to control immigration (not sovereignty) and in order to do that free movement of labour has to be stopped. Leave need to make a convincing case that they can obtain such an agreement, how it would work, and how long would it take to sign off. All the scare and project fear stories are side issues compared to this fundamental one. If I cannot be convinced that by leaving we still would not control immigration (not migration) then I would almost certainly vote to remain as in my opinion there would be no point in the obvious uncertainty that leaving would cause to the economy
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
If you believe Dave "I sure would" Cameron, and his amazing marzipan "deal", then you are badly placed to identify a lie. To put it politely.
REMAIN would have won a referendum had it taken place a year ago, the so-called negotiation was a sop to UKIP who were never going to like it whatever happened. It was a charade to keep UKIP quite before the GE. Otherwise known as politics.
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like.
Merkel has certainly changed Europe on her own.
She is very powerful but could change nothing if opposed by the other 27. That's how it works.
As suspected, Boris seems to favour a Swiss style Brexit deal. Tory Leave means continued free movement in return to access to the free market. Its problem is not immigration, but jurisdiction.
Boris also showed why he likes to avoid live TV interviews. :-)
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
If you believe Dave "I sure would" Cameron, and his amazing marzipan "deal", then you are badly placed to identify a lie. To put it politely.
REMAIN would have won a referendum had it taken place a year ago, the so-called negotiation was a sop to UKIP who were never going to like it whatever happened. It was a charade to keep UKIP quite before the GE. Otherwise known as politics.
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like.
Merkel has certainly changed Europe on her own.
She is very powerful but could change nothing if opposed by the other 27. That's how it works.
You many not have noticed but Merkel HAS changed Europe without the other 27 even having a say.
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
And there is some inner logic to this if we leave and join EFTA EEA like Norway. If we stay part of the single market and follow single market rules and free movement. And stay out of Schengen - unlike Norway of course which has 15% immigrant population.
But the main - well lets face it the only - argument Leave are wielding is an anti immigrant one. The big scare of Leave's project fear of the entire population of Syria lining up to migrate to the UK.
According to the Economist Norway is the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget despite not being in it. I am sure that will come as a surprise to many LEAVERS . According to the same source in 2013 (latest comparable data) Norway admitted twice as many EU immigrants per head of population than the UK.
"What would be interesting would be a thread on why the Tories have turned so much more eurosceptic than Labour, even though they never used to be. Given some of the EU policies we have seen in recent years, it is odd that there is not more of a left wing critique of the EU. There is certainly room for one. Why does the EU seem to cut across traditional left/right lines? Or maybe it is to do with which strand in national parties is uppermost: trading / jobs vs national sovereignty?"
I don't think it does. If the last several weeks have told us anything about respective positions it's that for the overwhelming majority of LEAVERS it's all aboout wrapping themselves in the flag.
All the rest of the arguments are fig leaves.
The surprise to me is that in 2016 it's still possible for so many otherwise intelligent Tories to still get hung up on things like this
I think people's reasons for supporting one side or the other depends on what matters to them most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about people's intelligence just because what matters to them does not matter to you. There are honourable reasons for being on either side of this debate. I don't think there is an obviously right or wrong answer.
Anecdote: a very close friend of mine, who has set up his own business, employs people of many different nationalities, has offices in a number of countries and moved to France for 3 years to give his children a European education recently came out for Brexit. I've been surprised by the numbers of people, of whom I would not have expected it, have said that they will vote or are considering voting Leave. Anecdote obviously - and there is time for opinion to change - but still.
Edited: in response to Roger.
Miss CycleFree, I shall be publishing your guest thread around 6.30pm.
It is an excellent read, I'm going to insist by using all my charm that she becomes a regular PB thread writer
I shall look forward to reading Mrs. Free's leader. Next time you are in Town, Mr. Eagles, you should take her somewhere good for lunch. I am sure Mr. Charles can suggest some suitable places - I am too out of touch on the London scene these days (is Le Gavroche still going? Used to be good for the midday meal), or maybe a jolly nice tea. As a fellow lawyer, you will know that Mrs. Free cannot be bribed but she, probably, can be influenced. If all else fails, diamonds are a girls best friend.
It doesn't matter if there was pressure or not. It's not as though anyone admits to pressuring others unreasonably. The problem remains it is very easy to believe it,it's the sort of thing people expect.
So , not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
If you believe Dave "I sure would" Cameron, and his amazing marzipan "deal", then you are badly placed to identify a lie. To put it politely.
REMAIN would have won a referendum had it taken place a year ago, the so-called negotiation was a sop to UKIP who were never going to like it whatever happened. It was a charade to keep UKIP quite before the GE. Otherwise known as politics.
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like.
Merkel has certainly changed Europe on her own.
She is very powerful but could change nothing if opposed by the other 27. That's how it works.
Saying "all are welcome" to Germany could be opposed by the other 27 how, exactly? There was no democratic process involved there. There was no veto.
They could have said, well airlift them in, not through our territory. But they were already in EU territory, partly because Greece was hardly minded to work with Germany to get a workable arrangement.
All those who come to Germany - and the only question is how many millions - have come into the EU without a vote. They will stay in the EU without a vote. In due course, they will become entitled to settle throughout the EU without a vote.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
ScottP
Might I ask what employment you have ?
Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.
I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.
Why?
Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
The one that has the deficit in monetary terms.
Daft utterly daft. So if the Bahamas has a trade deficit with the US presumably when the two countries sit down they'll have the US by the short and curlies? Do you really believe that? And before anyone starts moaning about me comparing the UK to the Bahamas, I'm not. Just making the point that when it comes to trade, SIZE matters. Why don't the leavers just admit this? We might not get the trade deal we want, but sovereignty matters more?
Funny how if it's they who need us more than we need them that it's the value of the pound that's been falling on Brexit fears rather than the Euro.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Not if you’re a teacher.
Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
ScottP
Might I ask what employment you have ?
Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.
I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.
Why?
Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?
Certainly there would be negotiations and they should be conducted sensibly as these are practical issues.
But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.
Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
The extraordinary hypocrisy of Merkel is that she is now complaining about Austria "unilaterally" imposing restrictions on migrants, thus impeding their flow.
Many of the Remainders get to feel good about themselves by claiming the Leavers are all nut jobs, fixated on migration. They miss the wider point. Migration is just the current in-your-face example of how the EU just does not work. You couldn't expect 28 people to sit down to agree a lunch menu when two are vegetarians, three are vegans and eight are cattle and pig breeders. The EU now has a structure that decides "we'll all have fish".
Then, very satisfied with itself, sits down to decide on the size of the nets that can be used to catch lunch.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
The one that has the deficit in monetary terms.
Daft utterly daft. So if the Bahamas has a trade deficit with the US presumably when the two countries sit down they'll have the US by the short and curlies? Do you really believe that? And before anyone starts moaning about me comparing the UK to the Bahamas, I'm not. Just making the point that when it comes to trade, SIZE matters. Why don't the leavers just admit this? We might not get the trade deal we want, but sovereignty matters more?
Funny how if it's they who need us more than we need them that it's the value of the pound that's been falling on Brexit fears rather than the Euro.
The LEAVE camp probably needs to settle on a transitional arrangement that preserves trade: EEA or EFTA. This could and would be done very quickly, as it would be in the interests of all, rEU and UK.
The LEAVERS should say that AFTER we quit ,the question of free movement - or not - will then become a democratic choice for the British people. If voters want to stop migration from the EU they can vote for a party that offers this, at the next election, and it will be done immediately, as the EU will no longer be able to stop us.
That's a coherent position.
Put it another way: Leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient condition: if you want to end free movement. But if we don't leave the EU then it is of course quite impossible to stop the influx.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?
'You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations.'
You need to ask yourself how much a continent that already has 11% unemployment and around 4 million nationals working in the UK wants to risk in the case of hardball negotiations.
Assume Germany has the odd £11 billion spare to cover the UK's annual contributions.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?
Barring incompetence, yes. The customer is King, he who pays the piper calls the tune, etc.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
ScottP
Might I ask what employment you have ?
Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.
I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.
Why?
Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?
Certainly there would be negotiations and they should be conducted sensibly as these are practical issues.
But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.
Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.
There would be no grovelling. But there would be a realistic assessment on both sides. The nature of import/exports would be a key issue. The actual trade balance is secondary if restricting what comes into a country actively reduces choice and increases prices for consumers in that country. I don't know the answer to this, but what high-quality, in-demand, difficult to replicate goods do we export to the EU? We are very good on the service side in that regard, but I have less insight into goods. The reason the deficit exists is presumably because we are not that hot. After all, it's not just with the EU that we have this issue. The same applies elsewhere too.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?
China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?
What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.
Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.
Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.
Teachers are not a homogenous mass.
A plurality of teachers voted Conservative in 2010. Teachers, like Gove, care about education, and probably most agree with his goals. It is a measure of Gove's political ineptitude that he managed to alienate so many, so quickly.
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?
Barring incompetence, yes. The customer is King, he who pays the piper calls the tune, etc.
So is the EU falling over itself to strike single market deals with everyone it has a surplus with? And we aren't simply a customer of theirs. We sell them 40% of our exports by some estimations. Many firms like Nissan and Toyota are here specifically to sell to the EU. And the Europeans know this.
Ask yourself what is your assumption based on? How knowledgeable are you of European political elites and how they are likely to react?
Davidson rapidly taking on for the SCons the status of Gareth Bale for the Wales team, though perhaps not to quite the same effect. If it's all a bit meh after May and she succumbs to the calls to move to a 'bigger' political arena, what will happen to the poor old SCons?
EU Facts: What would leaving the EU mean for expats? Would Britain leaving the European Union see British expatriates deported en masse? What happens to their property? We answer your questions
"I’m driving my yacht tender through the billionaire’s bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer. It’s only 11am but my wife has already cracked the Veuve Clicquot. If I spin the speedboat 360 degrees I can see the former mansions of Gianni Agnelli, Keith Richards and Jean Cocteau".
Funnily enough, I'm sitting here reading your comment in the Uma Punakha, Bhutan, which just happens to be the king of Bhutan's favourite hotel and restaurant. My suite has this view, which I snapped this morning.
'You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations.'
You need to ask yourself how much a continent that already has 11% unemployment and around 4 million nationals working in the UK wants to risk in the case of hardball negotiations.
Assume Germany has the odd £11 billion spare to cover the UK's annual contributions.
What are they risking? Are you saying that on Brexit the UK would accept free movement and would make contributions to the EU? If so, I agree. The Leave side should make that clear (Boris basically did this morning, to be fair to him).
Davidson rapidly taking on for the SCons the status of Gareth Bale for the Wales team, though perhaps not to quite the same effect. If it's all a bit meh after May and she succumbs to the calls to move to a 'bigger' political arena, what will happen to the poor old SCons?
Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.
IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?
China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?
What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.
Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.
China does not have full, unfettered access to the single market. It has a degree of access. If we have the same that will involve us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as of people.
Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.
I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.
Why?
Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?
Certainly there would be negotiations and they should be conducted sensibly as these are practical issues.
But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.
Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.
There would be no grovelling. But there would be a realistic assessment on both sides. The nature of import/exports would be a key issue. The actual trade balance is secondary if restricting what comes into a country actively reduces choice and increases prices for consumers in that country. I don't know the answer to this, but what high-quality, in-demand, difficult to replicate goods do we export to the EU? We are very good on the service side in that regard, but I have less insight into goods. The reason the deficit exists is presumably because we are not that hot. After all, it's not just with the EU that we have this issue. The same applies elsewhere too.
I doubt there's much which any country produces, outside of some highly specialised new technology, which can't be sourced from another country.
The area of risk for trade disruption would be for international businesses which have different parts, eg aero or motor engines, of a final product made in multiple countries.
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Not if you’re a teacher.
Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.
Teachers are not a homogenous mass.
Around 2 million people watch Andrew Marr. Slightly more than "us anoraks" on PB.
Davidson rapidly taking on for the SCons the status of Gareth Bale for the Wales team, though perhaps not to quite the same effect. If it's all a bit meh after May and she succumbs to the calls to move to a 'bigger' political arena, what will happen to the poor old SCons?
Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Not if you’re a teacher.
Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.
Teachers are not a homogenous mass.
Around 2 million people watch Andrew Marr. Slightly more than "us anoraks" on PB.
Given the deficit in trade between us and the EU, should it not be the UK that is offering the EU a trade deal?
Oh dear.
We did this to death some days ago
We sell the EU ~40% of our stuff
They sell us ~10% of their stuff
Which side has the Upper hand in the negotiations?
The one that has the deficit in monetary terms.
Daft utterly daft. So if the Bahamas has a trade deficit with the US presumably when the two countries sit down they'll have the US by the short and curlies? Do you really believe that? And before anyone starts moaning about me comparing the UK to the Bahamas, I'm not. Just making the point that when it comes to trade, SIZE matters. Why don't the leavers just admit this? We might not get the trade deal we want, but sovereignty matters more?
Funny how if it's they who need us more than we need them that it's the value of the pound that's been falling on Brexit fears rather than the Euro.
The LEAVE camp probably needs to settle on a transitional arrangement that preserves trade: EEA or EFTA. This could and would be done very quickly, as it would be in the interests of all, rEU and UK.
The LEAVERS should say that AFTER we quit ,the question of free movement - or not - will then become a democratic choice for the British people. If voters want to stop migration from the EU they can vote for a party that offers this, at the next election, and it will be done immediately, as the EU will no longer be able to stop us.
That's a coherent position.
Put it another way: Leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient condition: if you want to end free movement. But if we don't leave the EU then it is of course quite impossible to stop the influx.
That's not right though, is it? If we agree a trade deal with the EU involving free movement of people, which we will, that would then have to be renegotiated. The UK could not unilaterally pull out and retain the benefits of that deal.
Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.
Teachers are not a homogenous mass.
A plurality of teachers voted Conservative in 2010. Teachers, like Gove, care about education, and probably most agree with his goals. It is a measure of Gove's political ineptitude that he managed to alienate so many, so quickly.
Gove managed to get into a spat with May where he had to apologise and May's aid resigned. Not clever politics all round and again Gove's judgement called into question. This was before Gove was moved from education. (I like Gove BTW... he is being silly over the EU)
This was called a tory 'meltdown' at the time so it shows how you should ignore newspaper headlines. The Mail also said this was all about the tory leadership race, ''with Mr Gove said to be determined to stop her [May] on behalf of his ally, Chancellor George Osborne.''
To listen to people on here Gove is all out to stop Osborne. But then does it really matter what anybody says or reports - in newspapers or on here - as long as its sensational?
Comments
The only two ways to deal with the lack of accountability it seems to me would be either to integrate completely into a single political entity - a single state - or to leave entirely. Both would serve pretty much the same purpose of aligning accountability and power in one place.
"Slovakia's leftist-nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico has won the general election but lost his parliamentary majority, almost complete results show. [snip]
Mr Fico has vowed not to accept "one single Muslim" migrant."
I guess there's leftists and leftists.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35734947
How would you describe your view right now 80/20 Remain?
What would influence you towards Leave?
I don't quite know why the distinction seems hard for people to grasp.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Here is the official press release from the BCC.
This is the relevant piece, just to make it easy for you.
“The BCC’s Director General has been very clear where his remarks reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC.”
On the whole, I think Remain needs the debate more than Leave.
I'd also say that Heseltine is genuine in his EUphilia whereas Cameron loves the EU because it allows scope for conference going, 'saving the world' etc.
And you just have to watch.
Dead chuffed to be replacing @DPJHodges as the daily columnist at the @Telegraph
It leave us with a choice:
(i) agree a trade deal per Schauble with the pros and cons
(ii) negotiate a different deal, in which we would have to give something up to restrict free movement (which may not be possible)
(iii) or don't have a trade deal and, as the US and other markets do, rely on the WTO rules
But that's a choice that can be made by our democratically elected government.
The people should only be consulted on the most significant issues (betraying my age, I'd say Super Class 1 issues)
He said one of the reasons immigrants want to come to the UK, is the language, and also the lack of racism in this country. That the UK is very welcoming and tolerant, unlike other EU countries (which is backed up by their relatives in the UK)
It is entirely possible in 2020 the Tory Leader and PM is Sajid Javid and the Leader of the Opposition is Sadiq Khan, and most of the country will only judge them on their ability not their skin colour nor their religion.
Makes you proud to be British
We were never going to get much change - one country can't suddenly change the bits of the rules they don't like. We would have been better working with like-minded groups to constructively bring about reform rather than stropping around.
Given how little the other 27 have given so far I am all ears to know how we are going to pull off this wonderful no-immigration trade deal with them after we leave.
I suspect that there will be another 4 months of this denigration of the concept of Brexit as a "loony" idea, followed by a substantial majority for Remain on 23/6/16. The public will not be allowed to consider the real question - do they wish the UK to end up as a far flung relatively impoverished province of a Großdeutsches Reich?
The project towards ever closer union cannot be stopped by the UK if it remains on the EU train. Concessions negotiated with difficulty vis-à-vis the EU are abrogated a few years later, e.g. the opt-out from the Social Chapter. The same will apply to the tiny concessions that DC recently obtained in his negotiations.
'Can Labour win the next election? ‘The honest answer is: no, absolutely not…’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/06/jess-phillips-someone-to-believe-in?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
But the democratic accountability point is critical to me.
Boris's leadership chances were the prime driver of him coming out for LEAVE. He's not a true believer which is why he makes such a hash of interviews on the subject
The thing I worry about with the nomination is trump playing games.
Imagine in a couple of weeks - he's left cruz as the last anti-trump standing and it's looking like he may struggle at the convention. Even if he wins, he'll probably get unenthusiastic support from the GOP election machine...
Why not preemptively stick 2 fingers up to the establishment, leave the nutter in place to the right of him and run a shamelessly populist campaign?
I thought SeanT was using a new pseudonym when I read this yesterday
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/travel/article4705619.ece?shareToken=4aa10f06e80864a019d64b4e99334845
"I’m driving my yacht tender through the billionaire’s bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer. It’s only 11am but my wife has already cracked the Veuve Clicquot. If I spin the speedboat 360 degrees I can see the former mansions of Gianni Agnelli, Keith Richards and Jean Cocteau".
We will have to see how objective PB Party opinion is in the long run.
Maine, and how close Cruz got in KY and LA makes me wonder.
Who does the GOP go for at a brokered convention ?
And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.
Germany is the biggest country in the EU and its economic heartland. My use of the term Großdeutsches Reich is merely a figure of speech and not an implication that the EU is or will become a totalitarian state in the way that Germany was for many years in the 20th century. However, no member of the EU can now effectively oppose German wishes.
And stay out of Schengen - unlike Norway of course which has 15% immigrant population.
But the main - well lets face it the only - argument Leave are wielding is an anti immigrant one. The big scare of Leave's project fear of the entire population of Syria lining up to migrate to the UK.
She is very powerful but could change nothing if opposed by the other 27. That's how it works.
Boris also showed why he likes to avoid live TV interviews. :-)
One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G
It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue
Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.
I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave
On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.
Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.
Well full marks for loyallty
They could have said, well airlift them in, not through our territory. But they were already in EU territory, partly because Greece was hardly minded to work with Germany to get a workable arrangement.
All those who come to Germany - and the only question is how many millions - have come into the EU without a vote. They will stay in the EU without a vote. In due course, they will become entitled to settle throughout the EU without a vote.
No involvement of democracy. THAT'S how works.
Florida, New York and California should be more Trump friendly than Cruz.
Don't know how the rustbelt states will go.
Funny how if it's they who need us more than we need them that it's the value of the pound that's been falling on Brexit fears rather than the Euro.
Teachers are not a homogenous mass.
But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.
Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.
Then, very satisfied with itself, sits down to decide on the size of the nets that can be used to catch lunch.
China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.
The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.
What that actually means regarding who emerges as the eventual candidate... I don't know.
I need to do some reading on exactly how a brokered convention would work. Where do I start?
Does *the party decides* go into the procedural stuff?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3478634/Business-boss-suspended-backing-Brexit-says-Brussels-costs-billions-hits-No-10-s-biblical-scare-language.html
I think if Ted can beat Trump on delegates they may well give him the nod on a Cruz-Rubio ticket.
Or maybe Cruz-Kasich.
'You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations.'
You need to ask yourself how much a continent that already has 11% unemployment and around 4 million nationals working in the UK wants to risk in the case of hardball negotiations.
Assume Germany has the odd £11 billion spare to cover the UK's annual contributions.
What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.
Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.
Ask yourself what is your assumption based on? How knowledgeable are you of European political elites and how they are likely to react?
https://twitter.com/ScottMacnab/status/706427641763643392
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/706433827439181824
Then I went for brekkers.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/706311673909420033
Morning Sir. Coffee and Yak's fallopian tubes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_UK
I doubt there's much which any country produces, outside of some highly specialised new technology, which can't be sourced from another country.
The area of risk for trade disruption would be for international businesses which have different parts, eg aero or motor engines, of a final product made in multiple countries.
In fact, the UK has generally run a surplus with non-EU countries in recent years.
We'll be voting LEAVE because we believe in FREEDOM!
We'll be voting LEAVE because we believe in DEMOCRACY!
We'll be voting LEAVE because we believe in NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!
We'll be voting LEAVE because we believe in the POUND!
But most importantly:
We'll be voting LEAVE because we believe in BRITAIN!
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
"I'm Sunil Prasannan, and I endorse this message"
I don't bother myself except on v rare occasions, ditto QT.
This was called a tory 'meltdown' at the time so it shows how you should ignore newspaper headlines.
The Mail also said this was all about the tory leadership race, ''with Mr Gove said to be determined to stop her [May] on behalf of his ally, Chancellor George Osborne.''
To listen to people on here Gove is all out to stop Osborne. But then does it really matter what anybody says or reports - in newspapers or on here - as long as its sensational?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651674/Tory-bloodbath-Muslim-schools-fiasco-Cabinet-meltdown-Michael-Gove-humbled-Theresa-May-aide-fired.html#ixzz427bxnbqH