Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
Rank the following in order of EU priorities:
1) stabilising the Euro 2) dealing with mass migration 3) negotiating TTIP with the USA 4) negotiating Brexit terms
It's far from obvious to me that it ranks above fourth.
Hmmm: I think it's well above (3), albeit probably behind (1) and (2).
'Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.'
Yes of course that is right. Remember what a fuss German industry made about sanctions on Russia - and the UK is far more important to them as a market (four times as much in fact)
I'd love to know more about the Crossrail part of the story, and where these alleged costs come from. I believe we may have someone either tangentially or fully involved on here who may know more.
(I'm guessing it may be CBTC / ERTMS signalling, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks and haven't heard the story if it's been during that time.)
We do have someone on this board who knows the answers.
But I haven't heard him speak on this issue. I shall ping him.
(As an aside, JJ, have you ever connected an LCD panel to anything using LVDS?)
Worked on products that used derivatives of LVDS for comms, but never worked on it myself. It's not something I've looked into much, except for laughing at Firewire. Heck, one of the last products I worked on before the little 'un came along had a seven-segment display!
It's not really my area (then or now), but aren't there newer specs and systems for such comms?
To amuse myself, I'm building a modern version of the Z88 based around a Raspberry Pi and a 1600x480 panel. I can hook up something around an HDMI - LVDS connector, but I'm wondering if there is an SBC with a build in LVDS...
Does the panel only have an LVDS connector?
I wish I had time at the moment to amuse myself like that. Mind you, most people know to keep me well away from a soldering iron at the best of times!
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
Why would they want to worsen their already serious economic issues? In the event of Brexit, the rest of the EU would be keen to come to an accommodation with us as soon as possible.
Rank the following in order of EU priorities:
1) stabilising the Euro 2) dealing with mass migration 3) negotiating TTIP with the USA 4) negotiating Brexit terms
It's far from obvious to me that it ranks above fourth.
Hmmm: I think it's well above (3), albeit probably behind (1) and (2).
So perhaps not dealt with particularly quickly after all.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
If the EU decides to play hardball, worst case scenario is the UK has to find other markets for its goods and services and grow domestic industries to replace missing imports. I'm not saying these things would be a walk in the park, but nor do the prospects fill me with terror.
Worst case scenario in my opinion is we go down the WTO route, with a maximum tariff of 4%. As someone mentioned previously that could easily be subsidized by the £8bn saving in the initial period.
How does losing 5m jobs compared to our supposed loss of 3m jobs sound to Scott and the rest? I'm sure that would go down well across Europe.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
"Trade War"?
No, we would (if we had to) use WTO tariffs (on both sides), until a deal was reached.
I was thinking the other day that the 'Leave' argument is like having a bad mobile phone contract. You've been ripped off for years, but you've sort of ignored it and not done anything about it. You finally get up the gumption to phone the foreign call centre to argue for an upgrade to get you to renew your contract, and they tell you in no uncertain terms to bugger off. There's really only one thing to do isn't there? You might get a better contract elsewhere, but you could just go pay as you go for a while, or permanently. The alternative is to stay and continue to get the piss taken out of you.
Except they haven't told us to 'bugger off'.
The head of the household has gone in and renegotiated the contract. He's taken the new deal back to the rest of the household, some of whom are happy, whilst others are unhappy. Whilst he's happyish with the new deal, he's allowing the rest of the family a say on the new deal.
Nah. They have told the head of the household to bugger off and he is just trying to make it seem like he got a better deal. It is basically take or leave it on the same terms as before (although some on here who seem to be in the know on financial matters actually think it is a worse deal than before)
The funny thing is, David Cameron did have a chance to build a genuine non-Eurozone block inside the EU, and extract a different settlement for them. He could have spent two years in negotiation with Sweden, Denmark, and probably two or three of the Eastern European countries (such as Hungary and the Czech Republic) who have little appetite to join the Euro. Essentially, he could have gathered together all those countries that wanted to get off the "ever closer union" bus.
It reflects very poorly on him that he chose instead to try and rush through a pseudo-renegotiation.
That's what I expected Cameron to do.
Still can't quite believe either the crassness of the deal or the bullying attempts to make people accept it.
No I do not think that is realistic once you delve into it. We have got the acceptance of the EU being a multiple currency area. Other countries may join the Euro but if they do not want to there is clear precedent. I do not see any point in talking to various countries who already have different currencies with a view to forming some alternate block that like as not would never happen or be flaky in the event. Who is to say how constant these countries views would ... err remain? And after 2 years of fruitless negotiations with them ... where to next?
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Just wondering - how much of our trade with the EU is only counted as trade with the EU because it goes via Rotterdam to the wide world?
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
"Trade War"?
No, we would (if we had to) use WTO tariffs (on both sides), until a deal was reached.
Not the end of the world.
Actually, it would be very serious for a number of businesses in the UK. For my firm, as an asset manager with a lot of European clients, it would be a big issue.
But, as I've already said, I think it would be in the interests of both sides to come to an accomadation very quickly.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Just wondering - how much of our trade with the EU is only counted as trade with the EU because it goes via Rotterdam to the wide world?
I take it Scott P is also including tourism in his calculations.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
As usual you're ignoring the issue of profitability or that trade wars don't take place any more - at most we're looking at a few % on import tariffs.
And you didn't reply this morning when I enquired in what area of employment you're in.
Surely you have some employment and are not merely bleating and tweeting to instructions ?
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
So if no co-operation they can hurt us much more.
It's like fining a poor person £1,000 and a millionaire £10,000 - the poor person is much more adversely affected.
If the EU decides to play hardball, worst case scenario is the UK has to find other markets for its goods and services and grow domestic industries to replace missing imports. I'm not saying these things would be a walk in the park, but nor do the prospects fill me with terror.
Worst case scenario in my opinion is we go down the WTO route, with a maximum tariff of 4%. As someone mentioned previously that could easily be subsidized by the £8bn saving in the initial period.
How does losing 5m jobs compared to our supposed loss of 3m jobs sound to Scott and the rest? I'm sure that would go down well across Europe.
It's a little bit more complicated than that; supply chains are quite well integrated across Europe right now, and there are certain products - in particular in financial services - that fall completely out of the scope of the WTO. I'd also point out that trade deals also cover a lot of other stuff: transfer pricing, respect for intellectual property, etc.
Remain is what we know - we may like or loathe it, but we know it.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
Correct. Your last sentence sums up why LEAVE will ultimately lose.
That's an argument against change of any kind - albeit, I agree it's one that people will find credible.
It's not an argument against change per se, it's an argument that says that people are not going to vote for a change if even its proponents can't agree on what it will be or what is consequences will be.
Which sums up exactly what a remain vote will do, unless you can tell me how the EU will change in the next ten or fifteen years.
None of us know what will happen in the future, in the EU, the UK or the world in general but in a referendum the onus is on those arguing for change to explain to us clearly and unequivocally what change will mean.
Equally, being drawn further into an ever closer union requires " those arguing for change to explain to us clearly and unequivocally what change will mean."
Why does only one side have to predict the future?
OK I'll try it another way. We are in the EU, we know exactly what our trading arrangements are, we know what freedom of movement entails etc etc. It is not unreasonable therefore to want to know exactly what the consequences for trade, free movement etc will be if we leave. The onus is on LEAVE to tell us not keep dodging the issue.
One is with its near neighbours in the EU and the EFTA states, which allows our citizens to work in those countries without restriction and vice-versa.
The second is with close friends - such as Australia and New Zealand - where we allow 'working holidays' and the like.
The third is with countries where we have good regards for their educational and vocational qualifications.
And finally there is the rest of the world, where - absent family connections - you probably aren't coming in.
Almost all countries have similar distinctions: maybe they have three categories rather than four; maybe they have five. But they are all broadly alike. So, for Canadians trying to get into the US, there is the non-immigrant NAFTA professional visa which gives those people a completely status to - for example - Brits.
But all immigration policies dissect to a certain amount along national lines, partly because of history; partly because it's convenient to have special relations with neighbours (as we did with Ireland long before the EU), and partly because it is a useful heuristic for selecting people.
The scale of difference between 1 and the others, and between 2 to 4 is logarithmic.
Perhaps. But it is a lie to claim that if we left the EU then we would suddenly have a 'non-racist' immigration policy.
Well we're now getting into different argumenr about whether national discrimination is racist or not. But point is vast majority of national discrimination in immigration policy would be gone.
You and I will always disagree because I believe it that is the first duty of the government to increase the freedom of its citizens. Therefore a bilateral agreement with any country to allow freedom of labour would increase freedom, and I would look very favourably on it. You, however, have a different view.
Hmm - A bilateral agreement with Nicaragua would increase freedom of labour to move, but I suspect (as pointed out by that young lady on QT) that more Nicaraguans would come to the UK than in the opposite direction.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Just wondering - how much of our trade with the EU is only counted as trade with the EU because it goes via Rotterdam to the wide world?
300,000 TEUs go from the UK to Rotterdam and are shipped from there. 1,200,000 TEUs go in the other direction.
I would imagine that the ones we export through Rotterdam are of higher value, but it's hard to know for sure.
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
If you're going to write mercantilist tripe you might as well go the whole hog and remember that every pound of inports is a pound which doesn't go towards GDP, so cutting imports by more than exports boosts nominal GDP. In this bizzare instant end of trade scenario of yours, there is an awful lot of cash left stranded in the UK looking for something to buy, and a lot less cash in Brussels.
Just glancing at the debate on here it all seems so bizarre to me.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
4. I agree, Dave oversold it. But, again as has been done to death (but we seem to be doing Brexit to death, so hey) - he has codified our "no ECU" status in EU law, he has safeguarded our financial services from eurozone discrimination, and he has got us an opt-out from the single rulebook. These issues are critical.
You are flatly incorrect here. Not only are our banks included in single rulebook now, but the French got it expanded to non-credit financial institutions. And they made sure the language on "different" provisions of single rulebook enactment was removed.
We have an opt out of SSM/SRM. We adhere to CRD-IV as it is the implementation mechanism of Basel III.
Did you not read what you linked to?? There is a mutual non-discrimination clause between eurozone and non-eurozone members. That is to prevent, as @Charles rightly points to, the ECB trying to repatriate EUR business to the eurozone.
So I am flatly correct.
That piece that Norfolk linked to makes absolutely no mention of a non discrimination clause at all.
From the piece: ...Hollande said there are..."no special dispensations from the rules of the single market or UK veto over the eurozone, which is very important for France".
Which is exactly a non-discrimination clause although of course from the French perspective of them not wanting the UK to be able to discriminate against the eurozone rather than our desire for the opposite not to happen.
Yes correct. its a two-way street. I agree with your comments at variance with viewcodes opinions. I don't think the main article is particularly fair.
No, it really isn't, but, if you insist on using absolute monetary figures you get the same answer because of the relative size of the absolute monetary trade
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Isn't that JLR figure for the EU including the UK sales?
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Sweden and Denmark are in exactly the same situation as the UK and I didn't mention Norway and Switzerland so I am genuinely not sure what point you are making. I think that most would agree that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are primarily right wing anti-immigration movements rather than anti-EU per se. I did say that in the last couple of years immigration is muddying the waters somewhat.
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them.
Did Boris not say this morning he stopped that?
That was yesterdays story or so I thought. Not sure how valid in the first place.
For the loading gauge to be suitable for trains from Germany or other places on the continent to arrive and travel through then the entire route to London and beyond to Reading would be affected surely? As it is the trains are suitable for the UK and built in Derby.
People in the know would probably see this as a very stupid thing to say, but I wonder if a trick was missed with Crossrail. In the west it runs right past Old Oak Common, where there will be an HS2 station, and in the west through Stratford where HS1 runs (although there it is at a very awkward angle for an interconnection).
If they had built the central Crossrail section between Stratford and OOC to the same loading gauge as HS1, they could have connected the two and run services between the continent and the north.
This would have been expensive, but the now-cancelled HS2-HS1 link was going to cost at least have a billion for a single line and the Crossrail link would have been much more flexible.
There are a whole host of issues with this: such continental trains probably would not be able to stop at any of the central Crossrail stations (passengers wanting London would have to swap at Stratford); linking the two at Stratford may have been difficult; and there may not have been many paths for the trains (the central Crossrail section is due to start with a high utilisation). Oh, and demand for North-of-London trains direct from the continent is uncertain.
Good article by cyclefree - it strikes me that many of the defences of the EU here only serve to highlight its weaknesses. Talking about what the EU does well and how we see it changing strikes me as a far smarter approach to take, certainly to left-leaning voters.
I take it I'm not the first person to suggest that John Longworth would be a formidable leader of the Leave campaign?
No, it really isn't, but, if you insist on using absolute monetary figures you get the same answer because of the relative size of the absolute monetary trade
Perhaps an expert such as yourself can explain why Britain would lose out if 4% was added to all imports and exports?
What would happen if we just cancel the sides out?
Just glancing at the debate on here it all seems so bizarre to me.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
I have no affection whatever for this Tory government so the fact that to a small extent it's watered down by the EU as far as I and many like me are concerned is all to the good.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberr
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own at least there's safety in numbers
The Left in the UK has usually been well disposed to the EU because it enables the Left to achieve things which cannot be achieve through the UK parliament. I call that anti-democratic.
When a Labour or Tory government elected on well under 50% of the vote can legislate to restrict popular rights - such as, for example, minimum holiday and maternity leave entitlements - the EU comes in handy.
If the government offends the public, it can be voted out. Implicitly, your argument is that you can't trust people to vote the right way, so you need an external body to override them.
No, my argument is that we almost always get a government elected by less than 40% of voters, but it has the ability to introduce/abolish legislation opposed by the majority of voters.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Sweden and Denmark are in exactly the same situation as the UK and I didn't mention Norway and Switzerland so I am genuinely not sure what point you are making. I think that most would agree that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are primarily right wing anti-immigration movements rather than anti-EU per se. I did say that in the last couple of years immigration is muddying the waters somewhat.
That's certainly true of Geert Wilders: the Piel poll had more than half his supporters agreeing with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands", although they are much less warm on Schengen.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
That last sentence isn't quite true. Until Delors and Thatcher, much of the left was anti-EU.
The EU is not appalling. It has good points. But many other countries in Europe only recently became democratic and/or a nation relatively recently and/or have had appalling political structures and so view the EU more benignly and less of a threat to long-standing and pre-existing and strong political structures and culture.
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Sweden and Denmark are in exactly the same situation as the UK and I didn't mention Norway and Switzerland so I am genuinely not sure what point you are making. I think that most would agree that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are primarily right wing anti-immigration movements rather than anti-EU per se. I did say that in the last couple of years immigration is muddying the waters somewhat.
Yes but it is immigration concerns which drove the rise of UKIP and is the main issue for those backing Leave so we are not so different from the Continent in that respect, indeed the rise of Trump is based on a similar platform
As an aside, and while I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, Wikipedia is showing an Ipsos Dutch opinion poll from Friday with the PVV having slipped behind the VVD. (Albeit by a tiny 1%.)
The most interesting effect the EU has on railways is how Crossrail had to spend hundreds of millions more to make they met the specifications for German trains that would never run on them.
Did Boris not say this morning he stopped that?
That was yesterdays story or so I thought. Not sure how valid in the first place.
For the loading gauge to be suitable for trains from Germany or other places on the continent to arrive and travel through then the entire route to London and beyond to Reading would be affected surely? As it is the trains are suitable for the UK and built in Derby.
People in the know would probably see this as a very stupid thing to say, but I wonder if a trick was missed with Crossrail. In the west it runs right past Old Oak Common, where there will be an HS2 station, and in the west through Stratford where HS1 runs (although there it is at a very awkward angle for an interconnection).
If they had built the central Crossrail section between Stratford and OOC to the same loading gauge as HS1, they could have connected the two and run services between the continent and the north.
This would have been expensive, but the now-cancelled HS2-HS1 link was going to cost at least have a billion for a single line and the Crossrail link would have been much more flexible.
There are a whole host of issues with this: such continental trains probably would not be able to stop at any of the central Crossrail stations (passengers wanting London would have to swap at Stratford); linking the two at Stratford may have been difficult; and there may not have been many paths for the trains (the central Crossrail section is due to start with a high utilisation). Oh, and demand for North-of-London trains direct from the continent is uncertain.
But the flexibility ...
Well I am not in the know - but my view is that you should always try at least to future proof transport infrastructure. Doing it on the cheap always comes back to bite us. Our railways are built to the wrong loading gauge and all railways have been built to the wrong track gauge. Nearly all our motorways were built too narrow and all their bridges built so as to limit future expansion.
One of the great things of this site is the wide range of posters with experts in many fields who you can learn from.
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
Just glancing at the debate on here it all seems so bizarre to me.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
PB was about 18 months old when I first started lurking here. The referendum has certainly caused the biggest ululations imho.
No, it really isn't, but, if you insist on using absolute monetary figures you get the same answer because of the relative size of the absolute monetary trade
The relative numbers, whether in absolute or percentage terms, don't matter. The question is, would it hurt both sides enough for them to want to avoid it, or just one.
It's pretty clear to me that the answer in this case is "both", so a deal will be done to avoid it.
Sometimes I find the dis-ingenuousness of pundits wearying. I see Guido is commenting on this Longworth suspension business, no problem there, but feels the need to add:
Curious they felt the need to stress “no politician or interest group had any influence” on his suspension. Downing Street deny applying pressure
No it isn't curious - people have been openly accusing Downing Street of applying pressure since it happened, so of course they felt the need to comment upon it. It may well be true there was pressure applied, I have no idea, but the phrasing of the reporting is clearly to indicate 'they denied it, so it must be true/partly true' without outright calling the statement itself false, and is as tiresome as any politician's obfuscation or distraction.
Isn't that JLR figure for the EU including the UK sales?
No
So as you have the figures for the markets, what are they? UK, rest of EU, USA China, Middle east Africa???
I'll answer myself:
Jaguar Land Rover's global performance for the full year 2015 shows a balanced regional portfolio with record retail sales in UK, North America and Europe. Sales to Europe and UK each topped 100,000 vehicles for the first time ever: Europe was the company's largest sales region in 2015 with sales of 110,298, up 28% year on year; and with a growth of 21% over 2014 figures, a total of 100,636 Jaguars and Land Rovers were bought by customers in the UK. North American sales of 94,066 were 25% up on the previous year. The growth in these markets offset the performance in China and other overseas markets, at 92,474 and 89,592 down 24% and 7% year-on-year respectively. This reflected local market conditions, model transitions and the impact of the major industrial explosion at the Chinese port of Tianjin in August.
At least Longworth has done the decent thing and resigned and no doubt leave will see him as a coup. The problem is that for everyone pro leave gains there will be many others who will be pro remain.
I'm off to the Netherlands in May, haven't actually been before !
Nice place, and great people, but tasteless ham and cheese for breakfast, lunch and dinner does get a bit tiresome. (You might get them for elevenses and tea as well).
Rubio takes Puerto Rico in a Hillary type deep south (70+%) margin, but turnout is truly appalling, looks like Rubio will get a quarter of the votes Romney did in 2012.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, the Swedes, the Danes, the Italians etc etc. Don't get me wrong I don't believe the EU is perfect or anything like but if it really is as appalling as many LEAVERS tell us why does nobody else seem to be really bothered? Even in the UK it has only ever been an obsession of the political right until immigration muddied the waters recently.
...
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Sweden and Denmark are in exactly the same situation as the UK and I didn't mention Norway and Switzerland so I am genuinely not sure what point you are making. I think that most would agree that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are primarily right wing anti-immigration movements rather than anti-EU per se. I did say that in the last couple of years immigration is muddying the waters somewhat.
Yes but it is immigration concerns which drove the rise of UKIP and is the main issue for those backing Leave so we are not so different from the Continent in that respect, indeed the rise of Trump is based on a similar platform
UKIP turned immigration into an issue. A crude nationalistic issue; an issue to keep itself in existence. Carswell's first act on defecting from the tories was to debunk that campaign.
The practical reality is that the anti muslim rhetoric of UKIP has nothing to do with the EU and we have significant non EU immigration from all sorts of places. India America Australia Pakistan for instance.
at most we're looking at a few % on import tariffs.
So the EU pays 4% on 10% of trade, and the UK pays 4% on 50% of trade.
Bargain...
You have missed the obvious.
If there is a 4% tariff each way then the UK Government can use the money it raises from the Import tariffs to compensate the exporters for the tariffs they have to pay to the EU. Given that there is was a trade deficit of some £59 billion in 2014 that means the UK Government could pay all the tariffs in full and still be £2.4 billion better off.
My model forecast 6/3/16. Trump inching towards the nomination, 1237 required.
Trump 1227 Cruz 413 Rubio 262 Kasich 52 Carson 84
Carson is vastly overstated, due to the presence of very old polls in places such as California. There are also about 300 delegates from states so far unpolled, and Trump must surely have at least 20% or ~60 of them.
The model has so far underestimated Trump by about 20, and over-estimated Rubio by about 20, mainly due to Rubio being in third place in states that allocate by Congressional District, and the model being a little too generous in its estimates there.
So perhaps a more realistic point forecast at this time would put Trump on 1300, well over the winning line.
Of course, we're only 40% way through the contest, and some of the state polls have been clearly wrong. But Trump seems to be strengthening in the national polls, and Cruz fading, whatever relevance that may have.
It's hard to see Trump not winning a clear plurality of delegates. The only question appears to be whether he wins a majority, and what happens if he doesn't.
One of the great things of this site is the wide range of posters with experts in many fields who you can learn from.
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
I find that quite an arrogant assertion though I'm not terribly surprised by it.
Rubio takes Puerto Rico in a Hillary type deep south (70+%) margin, but turnout is truly appalling, looks like Rubio will get a quarter of the votes Romney did in 2012.
@RodCrosby I think Hillary will win in a landslide if Trump is clearly seen to have "won" the republican contest but falls 50 short and they go with Ryan or Rubio or some other chump.
Just glancing at the debate on here it all seems so bizarre to me.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
PB was about 18 months old when I first started lurking here. The referendum has certainly caused the biggest ululations imho.
I've been lurking for years. Living in Edinburgh I have lived through the sharp end of IndyRef. Trust me, wait until 2 weeks to go and this will really get to fever pitch. The In/Out referendum will get people because it will focus them on how they see a core part of their personal identity - British or European. I'd expect Leave to increase as we get closer as more people decide British. But what do I know?
Rubio takes Puerto Rico in a Hillary type deep south (70+%) margin, but turnout is truly appalling, looks like Rubio will get a quarter of the votes Romney did in 2012.
RUBIO RISING !!!
When was his cheerleader Cromwell last seen ?
I've got him at zero now in the GOP book, I can't justify a penny more than that on him.
The In/Out referendum will get people because it will focus them on how they see a core part of their personal identity - British or European. I'd expect Leave to increase as we get closer as more people decide British. But what do I know?
Maybe, but as a Scot who would describe myself as British, not European, I refuse to side with the xenophobes in either referendum.
The point is, it would be more than a scratch for both. If I'm going to lose a finger I don't care if the other guy will lose an arm - we'll both act so neither of us hurts at all.
One of the great things of this site is the wide range of posters with experts in many fields who you can learn from.
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
I find that quite an arrogant assertion though I'm not terribly surprised by it.
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Or you find it arrogant that RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall are successful and knowledgeable business / financial people.
If you know of a pro-EU group of PBers to compare with them please point them out.
There's Southam - who is always worth reading - but his support for the EU appears to be more on 'human rights' grounds.
I have always been genuinely perplexed as to why the sovereignty issue, which seems to be "man-the-barricades" issue for the LEAVERS, doesn't have the same resonance in the other 27 countries.
Different countries have different political cultures. If you've emerged from dictatorship, fairly recently, your outlook may be quite different to our own.
Fair enough, but why only the Brits - not th
...
I'm afraid it just doesn't just stack up to me. I can see that argument for the Baltic nations etc but are you really saying that we some how have a superior democracy and political structure to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ireland etc?
Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU altogether, Sweden and Denmark outside the Euro, Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and even in Germany the anti-Euro AfD is on the rise, Euroscepticism is not completely unique to the UK!
Sweden and Denmark are in exactly the same situation as the UK and I didn't mention Norway and Switzerland so I am genuinely not sure what point you are making. I think that most would agree that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are primarily right wing anti-immigration movements rather than anti-EU per se. I did say that in the last couple of years immigration is muddying the waters somewhat.
Yes but it is immigration concerns which drove the rise of UKIP and is the main issue for those backing Leave so we are not so different from the Continent in that respect, indeed the rise of Trump is based on a similar platform
UKIP turned immigration into an issue. A crude nationalistic issue; an issue to keep itself in existence. Carswell's first act on defecting from the tories was to debunk that campaign.
The practical reality is that the anti muslim rhetoric of UKIP has nothing to do with the EU and we have significant non EU immigration from all sorts of places. India America Australia Pakistan for instance.
Yes, well to be crude immigration wins UKIP votes, complaining about regulations on widget making and advocating a libertarian nirvana does not. Immigration from Eastern Europe was what fuelled UKIP's rise in market and coastal towns and the present quotas of migrants from Syria have boosted the Leave cause further
Looks like the EU could implode long before 23rd June as Brussels puts forward a proposition for a central asylum register from which refugees will be distributed throughout Europe (FT). What could possibly go wrong Mr Junckers
One of the great things of this site is the wide range of posters with experts in many fields who you can learn from.
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
This "site" (actually the comment section) is right-leaning and Conservative-dominated. Of course many intelligent people are going to support leaving the EU, it's the logical consequence of a certain tendency in Conservatism. If the site were left-leaning, your conclusion would likely be the opposite
Just glancing at the debate on here it all seems so bizarre to me.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
@RodCrosby I think Hillary will win in a landslide if Trump is clearly seen to have "won" the republican contest but falls 50 short and they go with Ryan or Rubio or some other chump.
Have you added in Rubio's haul of 23 from PR ?
Trump will win Michigan, Ohio and Florida and Illinois over the next fortnight, Rubio will drop out and there will be no brokered convention
Rubio takes Puerto Rico in a Hillary type deep south (70+%) margin, but turnout is truly appalling, looks like Rubio will get a quarter of the votes Romney did in 2012.
RUBIO RISING !!!
When was his cheerleader Cromwell last seen ?
I've got him at zero now in the GOP book, I can't justify a penny more than that on him.
Rubio reminds me somewhat of David Miliband or Michael Portillo.
Someone who was bigged up too much and too soon and believed all they had to do was turn up to win.
The point is, it would be more than a scratch for both. If I'm going to lose a finger I don't care if the other guy will lose an arm - we'll both act so neither of us hurts at all.
Except they would lose a finger, we would lose an arm.
@RodCrosby I think Hillary will win in a landslide if Trump is clearly seen to have "won" the republican contest but falls 50 short and they go with Ryan or Rubio or some other chump.
Have you added in Rubio's haul of 23 from PR ?
Trump will win Michigan, Ohio and Florida and Illinois over the next fortnight, Rubio will drop out and there will be no brokered convention
Re trade - rest of EU exports more to UK than we export to them - but surely that is only in absolute monetary terms - the % of our exports to them must be miles higher than the % of their exports to us.
Exactly.
And for those who insist on using absolute monetary terms, you get the same answer.
The EU generates 9 times as much money trading outside the UK as it does with us, in absolute monetary terms.
The UK generates a fraction more from non-EU trade than we do from EU trade, in absolute monetary terms.
One of these parties can afford a trade war. Clue, it's not us.
But BMW, cry the leavers.
BMW sells a lot of cars in the UK. but they sell more in Germany, twice as many in America, and more than that in China. the UK represents ~10% of BMW sales
In contrast, JLR sells more cars in the EU than any other market
So one of these companies could afford a trade war. Clue, it's not JLR.
Isn't that JLR figure for the EU including the UK sales?
As someone says 'no'. I am not sure you realise just how many cars JLR makes these days. They cannot all be sold in the UK. The EU is a major market. Hundreds of millions for gaws sake and looking for viable alternatives to BMW and Merc. Its the same for MINIs. Lets be clear - MINIs are built in Holland. Until recently they were built in Austria. Jaguars and Land Rovers are also built in India. In the nostalgic 50s British car managment was crap. Why should foreign owned companies get involved in trade wars?
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Certainly one should do that. Here's a list of some knowledgeable people and organisations:
- The PM - The Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Home Secretary - The Business Secretary - The Foreign Secretary - The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP - The IMF - Goldman Sachs - Credit Suisse - Citibank - BNP Paribas - The CBI - The TUC - The 20 finance ministers of the G20
One of the great things of this site is the wide range of posters with experts in many fields who you can learn from.
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
This "site" (actually the comment section) is right-leaning and Conservative-dominated. Of course many intelligent people are going to support leaving the EU, it's the logical consequence of a certain tendency in Conservatism. If the site were left-leaning, your conclusion would likely be the opposite
Certainly and I take that into account.
But on the EU we have a split in the right or more precisely a split in the Conservative supporters here.
The point is, it would be more than a scratch for both. If I'm going to lose a finger I don't care if the other guy will lose an arm - we'll both act so neither of us hurts at all.
Except they would lose a finger, we would lose an arm.
To argue that we wouldn't care, is not realistic.
Are you wilfully missing the point? I am taking no position on which side would be hurt worse as it's utterly irrelevant. Both sides will be hurt badly enough for them to want to avoid it.
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Certainly one should do that. Here's a list of some knowledgeable people and organisations:
- The PM - The Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Home Secretary - The Business Secretary - The Foreign Secretary - The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP - The IMF - Goldman Sachs - Credit Suisse - Citibank - BNP Paribas - The CBI - The TUC - The 20 finance ministers of the G20
There are many more, of course.
In other words the establishment.
As I'm not a member I'll take into account their vested interests are not necessarily the same as mine.
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Certainly one should do that. Here's a list of some knowledgeable people and organisations:
- The PM - The Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Home Secretary - The Business Secretary - The Foreign Secretary - The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP - The IMF - Goldman Sachs - Credit Suisse - Citibank - BNP Paribas - The CBI - The TUC - The 20 finance ministers of the G20
My model forecast 6/3/16. Trump inching towards the nomination, 1237 required.
Trump 1227 Cruz 413 Rubio 262 Kasich 52 Carson 84
Carson is vastly overstated, due to the presence of very old polls in places such as California. There are also about 300 delegates from states so far unpolled, and Trump must surely have at least 20% or ~60 of them.
The model has so far underestimated Trump by about 20, and over-estimated Rubio by about 20, mainly due to Rubio being in third place in states that allocate by Congressional District, and the model being a little too generous in its estimates there.
So perhaps a more realistic point forecast at this time would put Trump on 1300, well over the winning line.
Of course, we're only 40% way through the contest, and some of the state polls have been clearly wrong. But Trump seems to be strengthening in the national polls, and Cruz fading, whatever relevance that may have.
It's hard to see Trump not winning a clear plurality of delegates. The only question appears to be whether he wins a majority, and what happens if he doesn't.
Have you taken account of the recent move against Trump caused by the debate and Romney? Is there not a recent shift as seen in lousiana? Maybe we have seen Peak Trump. My money is mainly on Cruz though he is a nasty piece of work I admit.
The point is, it would be more than a scratch for both. If I'm going to lose a finger I don't care if the other guy will lose an arm - we'll both act so neither of us hurts at all.
Except they would lose a finger, we would lose an arm.
To argue that we wouldn't care, is not realistic.
Are you wilfully missing the point? I am taking no position on which side would be hurt worse as it's utterly irrelevant. Both sides will be hurt badly enough for them to want to avoid it.
Thats why if we left the EU we would join the EEA/EFTA. All of which would make little difference to where we are now. Except we would have no votes.
And my view is you are more wrong than Scott is less right.
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Certainly one should do that. Here's a list of some knowledgeable people and organisations:
- The PM - The Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Home Secretary - The Business Secretary - The Foreign Secretary - The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP - The IMF - Goldman Sachs - Credit Suisse - Citibank - BNP Paribas - The CBI - The TUC - The 20 finance ministers of the G20
There are many more, of course.
And some other things those and similar people have told us include:
Nothing is happening in Rotherham ditto many other places Stafford hospital is safe ditto many others Jimmy Savile is a wonderful person ditto many others Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fait Saddam Hussein has WMD There will be no more than 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants to the UK The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008
The In/Out referendum will get people because it will focus them on how they see a core part of their personal identity - British or European. I'd expect Leave to increase as we get closer as more people decide British. But what do I know?
Maybe, but as a Scot who would describe myself as British, not European, I refuse to side with the xenophobes in either referendum.
The point is, it would be more than a scratch for both. If I'm going to lose a finger I don't care if the other guy will lose an arm - we'll both act so neither of us hurts at all.
Except they would lose a finger, we would lose an arm.
To argue that we wouldn't care, is not realistic.
Are you wilfully missing the point? I am taking no position on which side would be hurt worse as it's utterly irrelevant. Both sides will be hurt badly enough for them to want to avoid it.
Thats why if we left the EU we would join the EEA/EFTA. All of which would make little difference to where we are now. Except we would have no votes.
And my view is you are more wrong than Scott is less right.
I do so love the way you keep repeating this myth as if you actually believe it. Quite sad really. You have spouted the same rubbish for so long now that you have managed to convince yourself.
You find it arrogant that you can learn from more knowledgeable people ?
Certainly one should do that. Here's a list of some knowledgeable people and organisations:
- The PM - The Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Home Secretary - The Business Secretary - The Foreign Secretary - The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP - The IMF - Goldman Sachs - Credit Suisse - Citibank - BNP Paribas - The CBI - The TUC - The 20 finance ministers of the G20
And some other things those and similar people have told us include:
Nothing is happening in Rotherham ditto many other places Stafford hospital is safe ditto many others Jimmy Savile is a wonderful person ditto many others Politicians expenses are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fait Saddam Hussein has WMD There will be no more than 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants to the UK The banks are well run There will not be a recession in 2008
Comments
Yes of course that is right. Remember what a fuss German industry made about sanctions on Russia - and the UK is far more important to them as a market (four times as much in fact)
Talk of trade wars is just desperate propaganda
I wish I had time at the moment to amuse myself like that. Mind you, most people know to keep me well away from a soldering iron at the best of times!
Edit: scratch that, probably a stupid question.
How does losing 5m jobs compared to our supposed loss of 3m jobs sound to Scott and the rest? I'm sure that would go down well across Europe.
"Trade War"?
No, we would (if we had to) use WTO tariffs (on both sides), until a deal was reached.
Not the end of the world.
Who is to say how constant these countries views would ... err remain? And after 2 years of fruitless negotiations with them ... where to next?
But, as I've already said, I think it would be in the interests of both sides to come to an accomadation very quickly.
Bargain...
And you didn't reply this morning when I enquired in what area of employment you're in.
Surely you have some employment and are not merely bleating and tweeting to instructions ?
OK I'll try it another way. We are in the EU, we know exactly what our trading arrangements are, we know what freedom of movement entails etc etc. It is not unreasonable therefore to want to know exactly what the consequences for trade, free movement etc will be if we leave. The onus is on LEAVE to tell us not keep dodging the issue.
Bargain...
Oh FFS.
'the status quo is not an option'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6bae9d58-e3ac-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html#axzz42ABuMDVK
1,200,000 TEUs go in the other direction.
I would imagine that the ones we export through Rotterdam are of higher value, but it's hard to know for sure.
I've read PB for over 10 years, I'm interested in politics and I'm indifferent between Leave and Remain. I don't think either option will make much difference to the UK and its people going forward - there are some plusses and some minuses and some uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
But I can tell that people on here are whipping themselves up into a frenzy in support of their chosen side. And people on here are more wound up about this than any other subject since the start of PB.
Am I the only person on here who finds it all just a bit odd?
I agree with your comments at variance with viewcodes opinions.
I don't think the main article is particularly fair.
What do those % equate to in cash terms as paid to the other party?
That is the figure that matters.
I would be delighted if we could stop
Bargain.
And why don't you want to say what area of employment you work in ?
I think we're going to have to assume you're nothing but a paid bleater and tweeter.
If they had built the central Crossrail section between Stratford and OOC to the same loading gauge as HS1, they could have connected the two and run services between the continent and the north.
This would have been expensive, but the now-cancelled HS2-HS1 link was going to cost at least have a billion for a single line and the Crossrail link would have been much more flexible.
There are a whole host of issues with this: such continental trains probably would not be able to stop at any of the central Crossrail stations (passengers wanting London would have to swap at Stratford); linking the two at Stratford may have been difficult; and there may not have been many paths for the trains (the central Crossrail section is due to start with a high utilisation). Oh, and demand for North-of-London trains direct from the continent is uncertain.
But the flexibility ...
I take it I'm not the first person to suggest that John Longworth would be a formidable leader of the Leave campaign?
Perhaps an expert such as yourself can explain why Britain would lose out if 4% was added to all imports and exports?
What would happen if we just cancel the sides out?
And as a net importer, get 4% of the difference?
It would cost us more (imports) than we would make (exports)
Do you see the problem there?
Now on the issue of the economics of BREXIT I see on one side successful and knowledgeable business / financial people including RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall.
On the other there are a few bleaters and tweeters of vague background.
Now which side seems the most likely to be correct ?
It's pretty clear to me that the answer in this case is "both", so a deal will be done to avoid it.
Curious they felt the need to stress “no politician or interest group had any influence” on his suspension. Downing Street deny applying pressure
No it isn't curious - people have been openly accusing Downing Street of applying pressure since it happened, so of course they felt the need to comment upon it. It may well be true there was pressure applied, I have no idea, but the phrasing of the reporting is clearly to indicate 'they denied it, so it must be true/partly true' without outright calling the statement itself false, and is as tiresome as any politician's obfuscation or distraction.
So you agree it's just 4% of the difference between import and export that is important.
And a slight rebalancing will sort that out?
Jaguar Land Rover's global performance for the full year 2015 shows a balanced regional portfolio with record retail sales in UK, North America and Europe. Sales to Europe and UK each topped 100,000 vehicles for the first time ever: Europe was the company's largest sales region in 2015 with sales of 110,298, up 28% year on year; and with a growth of 21% over 2014 figures, a total of 100,636 Jaguars and Land Rovers were bought by customers in the UK. North American sales of 94,066 were 25% up on the previous year. The growth in these markets offset the performance in China and other overseas markets, at 92,474 and 89,592 down 24% and 7% year-on-year respectively. This reflected local market conditions, model transitions and the impact of the major industrial explosion at the Chinese port of Tianjin in August.
The practical reality is that the anti muslim rhetoric of UKIP has nothing to do with the EU and we have significant non EU immigration from all sorts of places. India America Australia Pakistan for instance.
If there is a 4% tariff each way then the UK Government can use the money it raises from the Import tariffs to compensate the exporters for the tariffs they have to pay to the EU. Given that there is was a trade deficit of some £59 billion in 2014 that means the UK Government could pay all the tariffs in full and still be £2.4 billion better off.
Trump 1227
Cruz 413
Rubio 262
Kasich 52
Carson 84
Carson is vastly overstated, due to the presence of very old polls in places such as California.
There are also about 300 delegates from states so far unpolled, and Trump must surely have at least 20% or ~60 of them.
The model has so far underestimated Trump by about 20, and over-estimated Rubio by about 20, mainly due to Rubio being in third place in states that allocate by Congressional District, and the model being a little too generous in its estimates there.
So perhaps a more realistic point forecast at this time would put Trump on 1300, well over the winning line.
Of course, we're only 40% way through the contest, and some of the state polls have been clearly wrong. But Trump seems to be strengthening in the national polls, and Cruz fading, whatever relevance that may have.
It's hard to see Trump not winning a clear plurality of delegates. The only question appears to be whether he wins a majority, and what happens if he doesn't.
When was his cheerleader Cromwell last seen ?
Have you added in Rubio's haul of 23 from PR ?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/republicans/
Or you find it arrogant that RCS, Charles, MaxPM and Richard Tyndall are successful and knowledgeable business / financial people.
If you know of a pro-EU group of PBers to compare with them please point them out.
There's Southam - who is always worth reading - but his support for the EU appears to be more on 'human rights' grounds.
Manning is a first ballot Hall of Famer.
I remember Reagan coming into office, after one of the most disappointing presidencies (Obama I suspect will be compared to it) in US history.
A shining city on a hill, Morning in America, the bear in the woods - it was a great time to live in the US.
(^_-)
Someone who was bigged up too much and too soon and believed all they had to do was turn up to win.
To argue that we wouldn't care, is not realistic.
Lets be clear - MINIs are built in Holland. Until recently they were built in Austria. Jaguars and Land Rovers are also built in India.
In the nostalgic 50s British car managment was crap. Why should foreign owned companies get involved in trade wars?
- The PM
- The Chancellor of the Exchequer
- The Home Secretary
- The Business Secretary
- The Foreign Secretary
- The leaders of all the GB political parties with more than one MP
- The IMF
- Goldman Sachs
- Credit Suisse
- Citibank
- BNP Paribas
- The CBI
- The TUC
- The 20 finance ministers of the G20
There are many more, of course.
But on the EU we have a split in the right or more precisely a split in the Conservative supporters here.
As I'm not a member I'll take into account their vested interests are not necessarily the same as mine.
ooh let's all tug our forelocks at Richard's list of important people
And my view is you are more wrong than Scott is less right.
On the face of it, that would help Trump...
Nothing is happening in Rotherham ditto many other places
Stafford hospital is safe ditto many others
Jimmy Savile is a wonderful person ditto many others
Politicians expenses are honest
Elections in Tower Hamlets are fait
Saddam Hussein has WMD
There will be no more than 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants to the UK
The banks are well run
There will not be a recession in 2008
http://tinyurl.com/q9ssg87
I never knew.