Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Perhaps a better place to look might be maths, science, art, philosophy, engineering, medicine, etc, etc? Somehow such considerations make me think that we are part of Europe.
We are part of Europe, and always will be (unless @MorrisDancer and the octo-lemurs tow us offshore). But our philosophical tradition - Locke, Burke, Adams, Hume - is very different from the thinking of Descartes or Kant. Just because we have geographically co-located it doesn't mean that we should have the same governance structure
Yep, my comment could be used either way. To me it just means "give in & get on with it".
Hard science is and has been truly international (except when private finance is involved). Would that the world could follow that example.
By the way, I omitted economics from my list. I wonder what Keynes, fast forwarded to 2016, would have said.
He must be LAYING THE HOUSE OUT on Trump right now.
"In the US at the moment the two main parties are in primary season, and (if you hadn’t noticed) the media coverage is being dominated by Donald Trump. He is as short as 11/4 (26.7%) to be the next US President. Even without building any sort of model, we can tell you that the real chance of Trump winning is much, much less than 26.7%. He should probably be nearer 50/1 (2%). Donald Trump is a good case-study of a lot that is wrong with election analysis."
"But it’s very unlikely Trump can win the Republican nomination anyway. The rules governing the electoral process of finding a Republican nominees are complex, but have a built in disadvantage to candidates like Trump who are very unpopular in Democratic leaning constituencies."
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Since it's not up to Leave what happens next, it's irrelevant.
He must be LAYING THE HOUSE OUT on Trump right now.
"In the US at the moment the two main parties are in primary season, and (if you hadn’t noticed) the media coverage is being dominated by Donald Trump. He is as short as 11/4 (26.7%) to be the next US President. Even without building any sort of model, we can tell you that the real chance of Trump winning is much, much less than 26.7%. He should probably be nearer 50/1 (2%). Donald Trump is a good case-study of a lot that is wrong with election analysis."
"But it’s very unlikely Trump can win the Republican nomination anyway. The rules governing the electoral process of finding a Republican nominees are complex, but have a built in disadvantage to candidates like Trump who are very unpopular in Democratic leaning constituencies."
That bit in bold would be interesting, if only it were true.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Well funnelling our own money back to us via a corrupt scheme of grants is not the selling point you think it is Roger. If the UK was a net beneficiary of the EU budget then it might be, but we aren't. The government pays in £18-19bn per year and the EU gives out grants and payments worth around £7-8bn per year to projects and farmers. £11bn per year is literally pissed away supporting the Brussels bureaucracy, EU farmers and corruption in southern Europe.
That isn't the point. It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world. Discussing who pays what in or gets what out should be as irrelevant as whether Manchester or Leeds is the bigger contributor. As long as you establish they are both part of the Great Northern Powerhouse.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
And?
Your (theoretical) loss will be countered by someone else gaining by the UK's departure from the EU, and access to markets elsewhere.
Research on previous referenda predicts a 7.5% swing toward the status quo during the campaign period.Economic issues,the questions on currency in indyref,the threat of losses associated with any change,are the arguments that people prefer not changeA generally conservative country could swing more. Cameron could learn from Wilson and keep himself more in the background.The key time to release Cameron is when the postal votes start hitting the mat and on eve of poll.There also could be a very late swing to Remain.Even ukippers will start thinking twice of the costs of their place in the Costas escalating.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Since it's not up to Leave what happens next, it's irrelevant.
Actually it almost certainly will be up to the Conservative Cabinet members who are backing Leave. It would be entirely possible and useful for voters if they set out what policy they would pursue.
There are quite a few places where, while it is theoretically possible to change surgeries, either lists are closed or “the practice doesn’t covedr your area". In urban areas practice areas can be quite small.
Yes, previous discussions here have shown that practice varies widely. Both my current and my previous GP allow online booking of appointments, eliminating the "Call at 830" crap which shocked Blair 15 years ago but still persists in some practices. Every practice I've had in Broxtowe and London has basically had the policy that you can book well ahead and either get a random GP in 2-3 days or your favourite in a week or so, which has always seemed to me a reasonable deal.
The semi-requirement that you are in the catchment area is no longer always followed - I stuck to my old Westminster GP for 10 years till she retired (a wonderful Norwegian - used to spend a month every year volunteering her services in Haiti) and the surgery merely said well, it means you won't get house calls if you're on the other side of London. I think it's time to get rid of it officially and allow people to choose any GP, with the house call aspect (rare now anyway) as one consideration to weigh up.
The "call at 0830 crap" was a direct result of Labour policy. Tony insisted that appointments had to be avaliable at a days notice, with financial penalties for not doing so. GPs therefore would only open some slots on the day.
There is no financial cost to the patient for healthcare, so access is rationed by other means. I don't think this is nessecarily fairer.
Nick is severely overstating the NHS. The call at 8:30 stuff happens in most practices. Even many GPs that supposedly have online booking don't have a working system. The Dept of Health needs to force all surgeries to adopt this and fine them when it don't work.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
And?
Your (theoretical) loss will be countered by someone else gaining from the UK's departure from the EU, and access to markets elsewhere.
Leaving the EU does not give us automatic access to markets elsewhere on better terms than we have now. Again, this is a "hope", and an "aspiration"; it is not a given. And there is not a scintilla of evidence it will happen in any workable timeframe. The single market is a fact.
Must really hurt coming from a president that's been in power for 8 years and achieved zilch.
If you ignore the biggest trade pact ever, the biggest climate agreement ever, the Iran nuclear deal, bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, two supreme court justices and providing healthcare to 20m impoverished people.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Well funnelling our own money back to us via a corrupt scheme of grants is not the selling point you think it is Roger. If the UK was a net beneficiary of the EU budget then it might be, but we aren't. The government pays in £18-19bn per year and the EU gives out grants and payments worth around £7-8bn per year to projects and farmers. £11bn per year is literally pissed away supporting the Brussels bureaucracy, EU farmers and corruption in southern Europe.
That isn't the point. It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world. Discussing who pays what in or gets what out should be as irrelevant as whether Manchester or Leeds is the bigger contributor as long as you establish they are both part of the Great Northern Powerhouse.
Not really because it will just look and sound hollow if the PM trumpets EU spending in the UK. Trading bloc, for sure but not EU spending. We're a net contributor, the EU doesn't directly help our economy in the same way it does for Eastern and Southern Europe by pumping cash into infrastructure projects.
The reason the trading bloc argument isn't getting as much traction as Remain want is because of the figures I posted earlier. We have a massive annual trade deficit with the EU, only fools think that the EU would put up trade barriers with the UK if we left, and given that EFTA/EEA seems the most likely destination, at least initially, we're probably not going to lose out on any trade with the EU.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Since it's not up to Leave what happens next, it's irrelevant.
Actually it almost certainly will be up to the Conservative Cabinet members who are backing Leave. It would be entirely possible and useful for voters if they set out what policy they would pursue.
That's a fair point now.
I've argued in the past that there is no reason for Cameron to resign in the event of a Leave vote, but I think it's now clear that he would. I expect that neither Osborne nor Hammond would want to be involved in future negotiations either.
The difficulty is that becomes very presumptious for Vote Leave spokesmen to assume they'll be in charge.
Research on previous referenda predicts a 7.5% swing toward the status quo during the campaign period.Economic issues,the questions on currency in indyref,the threat of losses associated with any change,are the arguments that people prefer not changeA generally conservative country could swing more. Cameron could learn from Wilson and keep himself more in the background.The key time to release Cameron is when the postal votes start hitting the mat and on eve of poll.There also could be a very late swing to Remain.Even ukippers will start thinking twice of the costs of their place in the Costas escalating.
The Scottish independence referendum produced a swing of that magnitude against the status quo.
''This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: ''
Yu just want people who disagree with your high handed and arrogant analyses to just shut up.
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
Those are facts. They support an argument the European economy is in desperate trouble, and could hardly bear any kind of disruption, let alone one that meted out a punishment beating to a vital export market like Britain.
There are quite a few places where, while it is theoretically possible to change surgeries, either lists are closed or “the practice doesn’t covedr your area". In urban areas practice areas can be quite small.
Yes, previous discussions here have shown that practice varies widely. Both my current and my previous GP allow online booking of appointments, eliminating the "Call at 830" crap which shocked Blair 15 years ago but still persists in some practices. Every practice I've had in Broxtowe and London has basically had the policy that you can book well ahead and either get a random GP in 2-3 days or your favourite in a week or so, which has always seemed to me a reasonable deal.
The semi-requirement that you are in the catchment area is no longer always followed - I stuck to my old Westminster GP for 10 years till she retired (a wonderful Norwegian - used to spend a month every year volunteering her services in Haiti) and the surgery merely said well, it means you won't get house calls if you're on the other side of London. I think it's time to get rid of it officially and allow people to choose any GP, with the house call aspect (rare now anyway) as one consideration to weigh up.
The "call at 0830 crap" was a direct result of Labour policy. Tony insisted that appointments had to be avaliable at a days notice, with financial penalties for not doing so. GPs therefore would only open some slots on the day.
There is no financial cost to the patient for healthcare, so access is rationed by other means. I don't think this is nessecarily fairer.
Nick is severely overstating the NHS. The call at 8:30 stuff happens in most practices. Even many GPs that supposedly have online booking don't have a working system. The Dept of Health needs to force all surgeries to adopt this and fine them when it don't work.
The surgery where I am a patient has an excellent on line system BUT one has to be registered as a suer in order to use it. Fine for me since it also means I can request my repeat prescriptions on-line as well, and colect the dispensed medicines from the local pharmacy, but not so good for occaisonal or irregular users of the GP’s services. They are faced with a “call by 8.30” situation. I can easily make a convenient appointment if I want to discuss my “normal” states of ill-health, but if something flares up, or something else were to happen there’s little now (11.24 Fri) until Wednesday.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Well funnelling our own money back to us via a corrupt scheme of grants is not the selling point you think it is Roger. If the UK was a net beneficiary of the EU budget then it might be, but we aren't. The government pays in £18-19bn per year and the EU gives out grants and payments worth around £7-8bn per year to projects and farmers. £11bn per year is literally pissed away supporting the Brussels bureaucracy, EU farmers and corruption in southern Europe.
That isn't the point. It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world. Discussing who pays what in or gets what out should be as irrelevant as whether Manchester or Leeds is the bigger contributor as long as you establish they are both part of the Great Northern Powerhouse.
Not really because it will just look and sound hollow if the PM trumpets EU spending in the UK. Trading bloc, for sure but not EU spending. We're a net contributor, the EU doesn't directly help our economy in the same way it does for Eastern and Southern Europe by pumping cash into infrastructure projects.
The reason the trading bloc argument isn't getting as much traction as Remain want is because of the figures I posted earlier. We have a massive annual trade deficit with the EU, only fools think that the EU would put up trade barriers with the UK if we left, and given that EFTA/EEA seems the most likely destination, at least initially, we're probably not going to lose out on any trade with the EU.
In manufactured goods the EU has a surplus with us, in services the other way. The potential for non-tariff barriers in services is much greater than in manufactured goods, and potentially quite difficult for service exporters.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
I think the problem for Remain, or at any rate, the Government, is that you can't fatten the pig on market day. It's very difficult for them credibly to make the case that the EU is a good thing, when they've spent so long criticising it. A short while ago, the Prime Minister was arguing that a country with the 5th biggest economy would have no difficulty going it alone. So, they have to make the more defensive case that the EU is a necessary evil, and that leaving it will unleash all kinds of horrors.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Well funnelling our own money back to us via a corrupt scheme of grants is not the selling point you think it is Roger. If the UK was a net beneficiary of the EU budget then it might be, but we aren't. The government pays in £18-19bn per year and the EU gives out grants and payments worth around £7-8bn per year to projects and farmers. £11bn per year is literally pissed away supporting the Brussels bureaucracy, EU farmers and corruption in southern Europe.
That isn't the point. It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world. Discussing who pays what in or gets what out should be as irrelevant as whether Manchester or Leeds is the bigger contributor as long as you establish they are both part of the Great Northern Powerhouse.
The reason the trading bloc argument isn't getting as much traction as Remain want is because of the figures I posted earlier. We have a massive annual trade deficit with the EU, only fools think that the EU would put up trade barriers with the UK if we left, and given that EFTA/EEA seems the most likely destination, at least initially, we're probably not going to lose out on any trade with the EU.
If we seek to restrict free movement of EU citizens it is inevitable that the EU will restrict our freedom to move goods, services and capital around the EU. If we don't restrict free movement of people, then a lot of people who have voted to Leave are going to feel betrayed.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
If all us lefties dropped dead then the happiness of the nation would increase because the Tories and Kippers would have no living opponents.
You're wrong. It would be a massive disruption to the economy. We'd feel obliged to stop the economy to give you all decent burials. Because we are civilised like that.
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
One of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy???
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
One of the reasons some might vote for Leave is that they think that "Britain's place in the world", as you put it, "setting a direction for the nation as a whole" would not be best done within the EU, either as it is now or as it is likely to develop. The view might be that our collective happiness as a nation, which is something more than simply our membership of a single market, important as that might be, will not be best served within what the EU intends becoming and that, therefore, the future benefits from a departure will outweigh the undoubted costs of that departure.
Not easy to prove, I grant you, and the Leave campaign has been abysmal in making this argument in any sort of coherent way for more than about two minutes. But that is the choice, it seems to me.
One side is fearful of what might happen if we leave. The other side is fearful of what might happen if we stay.
The Fight of the Fearties, as Mr Malcolm G might put it.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
I think the problem for Remain, or at any rate, the Government, is that you can't fatten the pig on market day. It's very difficult for them credibly to make the case that the EU is a good thing, when they've spent so long criticising it. A short while ago, the Prime Minister was arguing that a country with the 5th biggest economy would have no difficulty going it alone. So, they have to make the more defensive case that the EU is a necessary evil, and that leaving it will unleash all kinds of horrors.
Not quite, they are trying to push to 'best of all worlds' argument.
In manufactured goods the EU has a surplus with us, in services the other way. The potential for non-tariff barriers in services is much greater than in manufactured goods, and potentially quite difficult for service exporters.
Not really, any deal done on trade will have to include both goods and services. They want to sell us cars, we want to sell them insurance. It's not difficult. The fact that our insurance sales are worth a net gain of £30bn to us and their car sales are worth a net gain of £120bn to them also helps our position.
Finally, the single market for services is a joke, losing access to it won't be the end of the world and the City will innovate around any loss of passport rights if the EU decide to start a trade war. The development of the eurodollar all those years ago shows that it can be done.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
The problem then becomes the Brexit negotiation. If it does not deliver the benefits that you and others claim it will - and all you have is hope here - then a lot of people who voted Leave, as well as everyone who voted Remain, are going to be incredibly disappointed, perhaps even angry. And if it does deliver what you say it will, then those who are voting Leave to substantially reduce immigration are going to be furious.
It's unlikely that both those groups will be p1ssed off simultaneously!
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
One of REMAINS problems is that there has been a consistent stream of negativity from certain parts of the media about straight bananas and the like.
Of course which is why I think you need to establish the EU is the biggest show in town and the UK are a major player. Suggesting it's the only show in town so there's nowhere else to go gives the Leave campaign too much space to pick holes which seems to be what they're relying on
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Perhaps a better place to look might be maths, science, art, philosophy, engineering, medicine, etc, etc? Somehow such considerations make me think that we are part of Europe.
We are part of Europe, and always will be (unless @MorrisDancer and the octo-lemurs tow us offshore). But our philosophical tradition - Locke, Burke, Adams, Hume - is very different from the thinking of Descartes or Kant. Just because we have geographically co-located it doesn't mean that we should have the same governance structure
Yep, my comment could be used either way. To me it just means "give in & get on with it".
Hard science is and has been truly international (except when private finance is involved). Would that the world could follow that example.
By the way, I omitted economics from my list. I wonder what Keynes, fast forwarded to 2016, would have said.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
As far as I can tell, economists estimate that the effect of Leave could be anything from a reduction of 2.5% in GDP to an increase of 1.5%. That seems an acceptable level of risk to me, in order to regain the ability to make those decisions.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
Living by the rules without being able to participate in making them, then? No, thanks.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
That's true. 6% of UK companies trade with the EU.
But you will either get EFTA/EEA or WTO. You should be able to manage with either, even if it is less good than now.
If we seek to restrict free movement of EU citizens it is inevitable that the EU will restrict our freedom to move goods, services and capital around the EU. If we don't restrict free movement of people, then a lot of people who have voted to Leave are going to feel betrayed.
We won't though. As I said yesterday, in a 55% leave vote there will be 45% of people who support the four freedoms and quite a few in the leave camp that support them as well, but are voting to leave for reasons of sovereignty (like me, DavidL, rcs1000, Charles and Richard_Tyndall). A majority of people would support EEA/EFTA membership post-leave. The whiners can like it or lump it.
Looks like Trump will be the only one to meet the eight-state requirement. He has seven now to Cruz's four.
The GOP really will self-destruct if they change the rules purely to deny the sole and obvious winner his prize. Besides, Trump will very likely win an overall majority of delegates in addition to the eight state majorities.
It's over, barring some improbable results next Tuesday, or a Black Swan taking Trump out...
I agree that they can't afford to be seen to cheat Trump of the selection (just as the PLP can't afford to challenge Corbyn and then deny him a place on the ballot - that really would turn members into reselection mode). But surely they can't say oops, we only seem to have one qualified candidate, oh well. It'd make an anti-climactic election and even Trump would see drawbacks in that. I'd have thought that they'd at least get Cruz in, maybe by persuading the "uncommitted" delegates (Puerto Rico, PA?) to give him a nomination?
It seems to me that a situation where only one candidate is eligible but even he doesn't have a majority is nt sustainable.
Who makes the rules? Are they Party rules or are they laid down elsewhere?
The GOP Convention in 2012, with the intention of President Romney avoiding any kind of contest for the GOP nomination in 2016...
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
One of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy???
While not a policy move, Draghi did open the door to helicopter money yesterday when asked. Seems insane to me.
I'm puzzled by the continued collapse in the UKIP vote and its relationship to the EUREF polls. Is the phenomenon completely unrelated or does it suggest a problem for Leave? Or is it simply the Farage factor being taken over by the Boris factor. I genuinely am puzzled.
UKIP are a sideshow now that the Tory BOOers dominate the media. Interesting to see how well the LDs are doing again.
They seem to have got some, maybe most, of the "none of the above" vote back that they lost to UKIP last May. At least in council by elections.
It may also be that UKIP are undistinguished at best in Local Govt, while LDs are rather good at pavement politics. I suspect that LDs are also picking up votes from those repelled by Corbynmania.
It will be a long road back though.
Lib Dems have usually outperformed their poll ratings in local elections. Even in the last Parliament, that was true.
The LDs have lost councillors in net terms every year for the past 7. At some point they will have reached bottom. Is that now, maybe? But if they do lose more councillors then their much trumpeted "fightback" can be declared dead. After all they have only declined 2/3 in councillor numbers from their peak in 1996. A mere flesh wound.
I would have thought the LibDems will lose councillors this year (2012 was the high watermark for the LDs last cycle), but will gain them in 2017-2019.
There are quite a few places where, while it is theoretically possible to change surgeries, either lists are closed or “the practice doesn’t covedr your area". In urban areas practice areas can be quite small.
Yes, previous discussions here have shown that practice varies widely. Both my current and my previous GP allow online booking of appointments, eliminating the "Call at 830" crap which shocked Blair 15 years ago but still persists in some practices. Every practice I've had in Broxtowe and London has basically had the policy that you can book well ahead and either get a random GP in 2-3 days or your favourite in a week or so, which has always seemed to me a reasonable deal.
The semi-requirement that you are in the catchment area is no longer always followed - I stuck to my old Westminster GP for 10 years till she retired (a wonderful Norwegian - used to spend a month every year volunteering her services in Haiti) and the surgery merely said well, it means you won't get house calls if you're on the other side of London. I think it's time to get rid of it officially and allow people to choose any GP, with the house call aspect (rare now anyway) as one consideration to weigh up.
The "call at 0830 crap" was a direct result of Labour policy. Tony insisted that appointments had to be avaliable at a days notice, with financial penalties for not doing so. GPs therefore would only open some slots on the day.
There is no financial cost to the patient for healthcare, so access is rationed by other means. I don't think this is nessecarily fairer.
Nick is severely overstating the NHS. The call at 8:30 stuff happens in most practices. Even many GPs that supposedly have online booking don't have a working system. The Dept of Health needs to force all surgeries to adopt this and fine them when it don't work.
The surgery where I am a patient has an excellent on line system BUT one has to be registered as a suer in order to use it. Fine for me since it also means I can request my repeat prescriptions on-line as well, and colect the dispensed medicines from the local pharmacy, but not so good for occaisonal or irregular users of the GP’s services. They are faced with a “call by 8.30” situation. I can easily make a convenient appointment if I want to discuss my “normal” states of ill-health, but if something flares up, or something else were to happen there’s little now (11.24 Fri) until Wednesday.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
I think the problem for Remain, or at any rate, the Government, is that you can't fatten the pig on market day. It's very difficult for them credibly to make the case that the EU is a good thing, when they've spent so long criticising it. A short while ago, the Prime Minister was arguing that a country with the 5th biggest economy would have no difficulty going it alone. So, they have to make the more defensive case that the EU is a necessary evil, and that leaving it will unleash all kinds of horrors.
Not really, any deal done on trade will have to include both goods and services. They want to sell us cars, we want to sell them insurance. It's not difficult. The fact that our insurance sales are worth a net gain of £30bn to us and their car sales are worth a net gain of £120bn to them also helps our position.
I'm pretty sure that we sell them cars too. Even more important, our entire car industry (which is quite significant - around 11% of total UK exports in goods, with about half going to the EU) is extremely tightly bound up with that of the continent. Our bargaining power on this is zero - there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that we'd risk damaging that industry, let alone other industries, by trying to play hardball. Of course it's in the interests of our EU friends also to maintain the UK's place in the Single Market for manufactured goods. In any negotiations, both sides therefore will immediately agree to do so - that won't be an issue in the negotiations.
What will be an issue is services, balanced against free movement. Basically that is what the Brexit dilemma is about. Which would we want?
If we seek to restrict free movement of EU citizens it is inevitable that the EU will restrict our freedom to move goods, services and capital around the EU. If we don't restrict free movement of people, then a lot of people who have voted to Leave are going to feel betrayed.
We won't though. As I said yesterday, in a 55% leave vote there will be 45% of people who support the four freedoms and quite a few in the leave camp that support them as well, but are voting to leave for reasons of sovereignty (like me, DavidL, rcs1000, Charles and Richard_Tyndall). A majority of people would support EEA/EFTA membership post-leave. The whiners can like it or lump it.
I do think we should have a supplementary question on the referendum:
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support membership of EFTA/EEA, like Norway, or would you prefer a looser arrangement:
[ ] EFTA/EEA [ ] A looser arrangement"
This would avoid the outcome where we invoke Article 50, then spend four years arguing with ourselves about relationship we want with the EU, and we are still - therefore - members when the 2020 election comes around.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
Is there not a degree of responsibility on the Company to find a way to trade and continue those markets?
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
As far as I can tell, economists estimate that the effect of Leave could be anything from a reduction of 2.5% in GDP to an increase of 1.5%. That seems an acceptable level of risk to me, in order to regain the ability to make those decisions.
I'm on 1-2% GDP down. That's less than one year's growth to put it in perspective. It's an acceptable level of risk, and the payoff will come from the fact that probably £5-6billion of net contributions (assuming we replace all EU spending in the UK pound for pound) can be used to reduce the deficit.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
Living by the rules without being able to participate in making them, then? No, thanks.
Only for goods we sell into the EU. We live just fine with selling goods into the US without writing their rules for them
'It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world'
The hard core (Eurozone) of the 'largest trading block in the world' saw its GDP rise by a TOTAL of just 0.6% in the eight years since 2007. It is an economy in very serious relative decline, a decline that will worsen in the next 15-20 years due to unfavourable demographics.
It makes no economic sense to be part of a preferential trading arrangement with this group of countries.
It might have made some sense 40-50 years ago but the world has moved on - and so must we.
The key to this country's economic success over last several centuries has been adaptability. Once upon a time our foreign trade was all about cloth and wool to the low countries, then we had a transatlantic focus, then the imperial trade to Asia and Africa.
Now we are in the midst of another shift, away from European trade and to a more worldwide pattern. Our trading arrangements, diplomacy and political structures need to reflect that change. That means exiting the EU and managing the process by which we interlock with the rest of the world economy (inc the EU) ourselves.
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
One of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy???
While not a policy move, Draghi did open the door to helicopter money yesterday when asked. Seems insane to me.
For most of economic history, the very notion of negative interest rates would have been utterly inconceivable. Similarly negative bond yields. But we are where we are. Remainers like to pretend the situation is normal. But it ain't.
If we seek to restrict free movement of EU citizens it is inevitable that the EU will restrict our freedom to move goods, services and capital around the EU. If we don't restrict free movement of people, then a lot of people who have voted to Leave are going to feel betrayed.
We won't though. As I said yesterday, in a 55% leave vote there will be 45% of people who support the four freedoms and quite a few in the leave camp that support them as well, but are voting to leave for reasons of sovereignty (like me, DavidL, rcs1000, Charles and Richard_Tyndall). A majority of people would support EEA/EFTA membership post-leave. The whiners can like it or lump it.
I do think we should have a supplementary question on the referendum:
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support membership of EFTA/EEA, like Norway, or would you prefer a looser arrangement:
[ ] EFTA/EEA [ ] A looser arrangement"
This would avoid the outcome where we invoke Article 50, then spend four years arguing with ourselves about relationship we want with the EU, and we are still - therefore - members when the 2020 election comes around.
If we seek to restrict free movement of EU citizens it is inevitable that the EU will restrict our freedom to move goods, services and capital around the EU. If we don't restrict free movement of people, then a lot of people who have voted to Leave are going to feel betrayed.
We won't though. As I said yesterday, in a 55% leave vote there will be 45% of people who support the four freedoms and quite a few in the leave camp that support them as well, but are voting to leave for reasons of sovereignty (like me, DavidL, rcs1000, Charles and Richard_Tyndall). A majority of people would support EEA/EFTA membership post-leave. The whiners can like it or lump it.
I do think we should have a supplementary question on the referendum:
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support membership of EFTA/EEA, like Norway, or would you prefer a looser arrangement:
[ ] EFTA/EEA [ ] A looser arrangement"
This would avoid the outcome where we invoke Article 50, then spend four years arguing with ourselves about relationship we want with the EU, and we are still - therefore - members when the 2020 election comes around.
Needs to be more explicit.
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support the continued free movement of people within the EU area including the UK?"
btw popping in here during a free moment, I see we are still asking and answering the same questions (more/less influence out/in and plenty others we have been discussing).
perhaps we need a shorthand for this, as in: "May I refer my PB friend @Charles to my Answer 4."
Not really, any deal done on trade will have to include both goods and services. They want to sell us cars, we want to sell them insurance. It's not difficult. The fact that our insurance sales are worth a net gain of £30bn to us and their car sales are worth a net gain of £120bn to them also helps our position.
I'm pretty sure that we sell them cars too. Even more important, our entire car industry (which is quite significant - around 11% of total UK exports in goods, with about half going to the EU) is extremely tightly bound up with that of the continent. Our bargaining power on this is zero - there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that we'd risk damaging that industry, let alone other industries, by trying to play hardball. Of course it's in the interests of our EU friends also to maintain the UK's place in the Single Market for manufactured goods. In any negotiations, both sides therefore will immediately agree to do so - that won't be an issue in the negotiations.
What will be an issue is services, balanced against free movement. Basically that is what the Brexit dilemma is about. Which would we want?
Positions like this are why the PM got such a poor deal. Honestly Richard, have you never walked away from a negotiation before when the deal has been bad.
I've said it again and again, I agree that the EU won't offer single market access without also forcing the four freedoms. I'm comfortable with that, and I think the majority of the country will be as well. Only in the case where there is an overwhelming vote to Leave (as in 66% or more) would we need to consider restricting the four freedoms. That scenario is highly unlikely.
I'll live with not being able to contribute and losing what little "influence" we have for the massive repatriation of power and money we would get by moving to EEA membership. I think it's a good compromise, and as we develop non-EU trade relationships everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
'It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world'
The hard core (Eurozone) of the 'largest trading block in the world' saw its GDP rise by a TOTAL of just 0.6% in the eight years since 2007. It is an economy in very serious relative decline, a decline that will worsen in the next 15-20 years due to unfavourable demographics.
It makes no economic sense to be part of a preferential trading arrangement with this group of countries.
It might have made some sense 40-50 years ago but the world has moved on - and so must we.
The key to this country's economic success over last several centuries has been adaptability. Once upon a time our foreign trade was all about cloth and wool to the low countries, then we had a transatlantic focus, then the imperial trade to Asia and Africa.
Now we are in the midst of another shift, away from European trade and to a more worldwide pattern. Our trading arrangements, diplomacy and political structures need to reflect that change. That means exiting the EU and managing the process by which we interlock with the rest of the world economy (inc the EU) ourselves.
Not really, any deal done on trade will have to include both goods and services. They want to sell us cars, we want to sell them insurance. It's not difficult. The fact that our insurance sales are worth a net gain of £30bn to us and their car sales are worth a net gain of £120bn to them also helps our position.
I'm pretty sure that we sell them cars too. Even more important, our entire car industry (which is quite significant - around 11% of total UK exports in goods, with about half going to the EU) is extremely tightly bound up with that of the continent. Our bargaining power on this is zero - there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that we'd risk damaging that industry, let alone other industries, by trying to play hardball. Of course it's in the interests of our EU friends also to maintain the UK's place in the Single Market for manufactured goods. In any negotiations, both sides therefore will immediately agree to do so - that won't be an issue in the negotiations.
Richard, you are so certain that this will be the situation yet I have asked what experience you have in international govt negotiations that informs your view? On what are you basing your firm conclusions?
@SamCoatesTimes: Breaking: Boris Johnson today advocating the Canadian relationship for post Brexit Britain. No payments to Brussels, no free movement &....
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
That's true. 6% of UK companies trade with the EU.
But you will either get EFTA/EEA or WTO. You should be able to manage with either, even if it is less good than now.
How many people do those 6% employ and what is their contribution to the exchequer? Of course, our business will manage. But it may mean reduced profitability, jobs cuts and who knows what else. Is it a price worth paying? Right now I don't think so.
The Leave side cannot offer anything concrete. Instead, we get a variety of dream scenarios all predicated on the idea that everything will turn out alright just because it will. I am afraid I don't buy that. My view is that the Tories will need a new leader, something which will take a few months to sort out; then the negotiations will begin and they will be painstaking and tough and done against a ticking clock. They will take up a lot of government time. Only when Brexit is sorted will we have the capacity to turn to negotiating deals with other countries and each one of those will take time to do, especially as we will not be a priority for these countries in the way that the EU is.
Obviously, I have just one vote and, like you, I'll be fine whatever is decided - but a lot of people are going to vote to Leave and the chances are that they are going to end up being hugely disappointed.
For most of economic history, the very notion of negative interest rates would have been utterly inconceivable. Similarly negative bond yields. But we are where we are. Remainers like to pretend the situation is normal. But it ain't.
What on earth are you going on about? Who are these 'Remainers'? And what have you been reading for the last seven years? Clearly, whatever it was, you missed the fact that the US and UK engaged on humongous QE programmes. Of course monetary policy in the Eurozone is not 'normal' at the moment. In fact, the big problem has been that it has been too normal over the past few years - they should have done more, earlier, like the UK and US.
None of this, however, has the faintest relevance to whether the UK should stay in the EU or not.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
As far as I can tell, economists estimate that the effect of Leave could be anything from a reduction of 2.5% in GDP to an increase of 1.5%. That seems an acceptable level of risk to me, in order to regain the ability to make those decisions.
I'm on 1-2% GDP down. That's less than one year's growth to put it in perspective. It's an acceptable level of risk, and the payoff will come from the fact that probably £5-6billion of net contributions (assuming we replace all EU spending in the UK pound for pound) can be used to reduce the deficit.
As an aside (who cares about such trivia?) that 1-2% down could be hugely damaging to the Conservatives if we are already heading for a downturn, so that the two effects coincide.
@SamCoatesTimes: Breaking: Boris Johnson today advocating the Canadian relationship for post Brexit Britain. No payments to Brussels, no free movement &....
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
As far as I can tell, economists estimate that the effect of Leave could be anything from a reduction of 2.5% in GDP to an increase of 1.5%. That seems an acceptable level of risk to me, in order to regain the ability to make those decisions.
I'm on 1-2% GDP down. That's less than one year's growth to put it in perspective. It's an acceptable level of risk, and the payoff will come from the fact that probably £5-6billion of net contributions (assuming we replace all EU spending in the UK pound for pound) can be used to reduce the deficit.
I saw a forecast here which said 0.6% down, but slightly higher trend growth if the government develops non-EU trade relationships quickly.
'It's about making a virtue of being at the vanguard of the largest trading block in the world'
The hard core (Eurozone) of the 'largest trading block in the world' saw its GDP rise by a TOTAL of just 0.6% in the eight years since 2007. It is an economy in very serious relative decline, a decline that will worsen in the next 15-20 years due to unfavourable demographics.
It makes no economic sense to be part of a preferential trading arrangement with this group of countries.
It might have made some sense 40-50 years ago but the world has moved on - and so must we.
The key to this country's economic success over last several centuries has been adaptability. Once upon a time our foreign trade was all about cloth and wool to the low countries, then we had a transatlantic focus, then the imperial trade to Asia and Africa.
Now we are in the midst of another shift, away from European trade and to a more worldwide pattern. Our trading arrangements, diplomacy and political structures need to reflect that change. That means exiting the EU and managing the process by which we interlock with the rest of the world economy (inc the EU) ourselves.
I'm always wary about those kind of extrapolations. If we'd been doing the calculation in 2009, then you could have said something like this:
"The Eurozone has grown at an average of 2.4% over the past eight years, ahead of the UK and the US. Furthermore, it has avoided the subprime and debt crises of the UK and the US."
Economics moves in cycles. And the Eurozone - despite its flaws - is due a cyclical upturn. (Why? Its consumers and businesses are relatively debt free. Government spending has been dramatically cut. Almost all Eurozone countries run current account surpluses. Its banks have been recapitalised. There has been substantial labour market reform. And, most importantly, savings rates have probably bottomed.)
That doesn't mean we want to be in bed with the Eurozone or in the EU. I wrote at length last night about why we should leave the EU, and shan't repeat myself. But I think the 'Eurozone is an economic wasteland' argument is a weak one.
Richard, you are so certain that this will be the situation yet I have asked what experience you have in international govt negotiations that informs your view? On what are you basing your firm conclusions?
I am basing them on political and economic reality.
Robert Kimball Leader of the Conservatives in the EU Parliament and London MEP Dr Syed Kamall will vote for the UK to Leave the EU. https://t.co/D08rUUSJ7B
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
Excellent article Alastaire. I think you have got the the Remain tactics absolutely right and that's what I'd expect to see. I was speaking to an advertising friend the other day and he thought the campaign would be full of high tech ads showing EU projects with the UK at the vanguard... snip ...
Great idea. Remind us where the EU gets the cash for these projects.
Oh yes, we pay it to them. And they skim it, and give some back.
Leave can always counter with publicity for the European funded motorways to nowhere, and abandoned ghost airports. Not to mention the large scale frauds. Billions of wasted Euro.
Of course there are ways to counter it but the point is this; There's no sensible way of selling REMAINING without selling the EU itself. At the moment one of the reasons LEAVE has as much traction as it does is because the EU looks broken. It's the first job of the REMAINERS to show that it isn't .
Hard to do if it is broken though.
Other than giving us a small fraction of out own money back, not a very valid argument, what does the EU do now that isn't broken?
It gives us full and unfettered access to 27 markets. If we leave and we do not get the settlement that we are told we will get by some on here, then it will have a significant, negative impact on my company's business. We will not be the only one.
Is there not a degree of responsibility on the Company to find a way to trade and continue those markets?
Barriers are erected to be circumnavigated.
We won't give up and we will carry on trading. But it will have a negative impact on our business in terms of profitability and ability to grow.
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
One of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy???
While not a policy move, Draghi did open the door to helicopter money yesterday when asked. Seems insane to me.
For most of economic history, the very notion of negative interest rates would have been utterly inconceivable. Similarly negative bond yields. But we are where we are. Remainers like to pretend the situation is normal. But it ain't.
Don't forget the EU is just following in the footsteps of others. The Japanese did QE first. The Brits and the US followed. The Eurozone is well behind.
To put in context: the Bank of Japan owns government debt equivalent to 40% of GDP. For the UK, its about 30%, the US is 25%. And the ECB owns debt equivalent to - what - 17% of Eurozone GDP. Its QE is still pretty small scale compared to what happened in the UK, Japan and the US.
And nor was the ECB the first to go down the negative interest rate route. It's a path the Danish, the Japanese, the Swiss and the Swedish have all gone down. And in Sweden it worked: Swedish Q4 GDP was us 3.7% year-over-year - the highest of any reasonably sized country in the world. (Ireland, which clocked a 9.2% year-over-year GDP growth number in Q4 doesn't really count.)
I'm always wary about those kind of extrapolations. If we'd been doing the calculation in 2009, then you could have said something like this:
"The Eurozone has grown at an average of 2.4% over the past eight years, ahead of the UK and the US. Furthermore, it has avoided the subprime and debt crises of the UK and the US."
Economics moves in cycles. And the Eurozone - despite its flaws - is due a cyclical upturn. (Why? Its consumers and businesses are relatively debt free. Government spending has been dramatically cut. Almost all Eurozone countries run current account surpluses. Its banks have been recapitalised. There has been substantial labour market reform. And, most importantly, savings rates have probably bottomed.)
That doesn't mean we want to be in bed with the Eurozone or in the EU. I wrote at length last night about why we should leave the EU, and shan't repeat myself. But I think the 'Eurozone is an economic wasteland' argument is a weak one.
I did the 10 year figures based on the IMF WEO:
There has been a lot said about trade and growth, well there are the growth stats from the IMF WEO:
2004 GDP (USD Tn, Nom):
EU28 (Yes I know it was 25 nations back then) - 13.70 Non-EU - 29.75
2014 GDP:
EU28 - 18.53 Non-EU - 58.74
Cumulative 10y growth:
EU28 - 35.22% Non-EU - 87.56%
EU ex UK 2004 - 11.40 EU ex UK 2014 - 15.58 10y cum - 36.7%
Looking at ex-UK from 2009 after the EMU crisis developed the EU as a whole has grown by 8.7%, without the UK it is 5.7% growth.
For most of economic history, the very notion of negative interest rates would have been utterly inconceivable. Similarly negative bond yields. But we are where we are. Remainers like to pretend the situation is normal. But it ain't.
What on earth are you going on about? Who are these 'Remainers'? And what have you been reading for the last seven years? Clearly, whatever it was, you missed the fact that the US and UK engaged on humongous QE programmes. Of course monetary policy in the Eurozone is not 'normal' at the moment. In fact, the big problem has been that it has been too normal over the past few years - they should have done more, earlier, like the UK and US.
None of this, however, has the faintest relevance to whether the UK should stay in the EU or not.
I accept the UK and US went through extreme policy moves. But interest rates never fell below zero in either case. The Fed never paid its banks to lend and stung them to deposit which is what the ECB is doing currently.
Negative interest rates is an extreme policy move. Apart from modern day Japan, has it ever been tried at any time by any major economy ever?
I've said it again and again, I agree that the EU won't offer single market access without also forcing the four freedoms. I'm comfortable with that, and I think the majority of the country will be as well. Only in the case where there is an overwhelming vote to Leave (as in 66% or more) would we need to consider restricting the four freedoms. That scenario is highly unlikely.
I'll live with not being able to contribute and losing what little "influence" we have for the massive repatriation of power and money we would get by moving to EEA membership. I think it's a good compromise, and as we develop non-EU trade relationships everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
All that is fair enough, but the trouble is that lots of people will be voting Leave precisely because they don't like the freedom of movement arrangements. I don't think the Leave side can simply ignore this problem - the political fallout of winning the referendum on a false prospectus, on such an emotive issue, would be huge.
To make it worse, another major reasson people support Leave is because of an unrealistic idea that somehow we'd be free of irksome regulations if we left the EU. (I heard a good example yesterday - the EU regulations for rest periods for HGV drivers. These are much the same for non-EU countries in Europe, through a separate international agreement AETR).
I'm always wary about those kind of extrapolations. If we'd been doing the calculation in 2009, then you could have said something like this:
"The Eurozone has grown at an average of 2.4% over the past eight years, ahead of the UK and the US. Furthermore, it has avoided the subprime and debt crises of the UK and the US."
Economics moves in cycles. And the Eurozone - despite its flaws - is due a cyclical upturn. (Why? Its consumers and businesses are relatively debt free. Government spending has been dramatically cut. Almost all Eurozone countries run current account surpluses. Its banks have been recapitalised. There has been substantial labour market reform. And, most importantly, savings rates have probably bottomed.)
That doesn't mean we want to be in bed with the Eurozone or in the EU. I wrote at length last night about why we should leave the EU, and shan't repeat myself. But I think the 'Eurozone is an economic wasteland' argument is a weak one.
I did the 10 year figures based on the IMF WEO:
There has been a lot said about trade and growth, well there are the growth stats from the IMF WEO:
2004 GDP (USD Tn, Nom):
EU28 (Yes I know it was 25 nations back then) - 13.70 Non-EU - 29.75
2014 GDP:
EU28 - 18.53 Non-EU - 58.74
Cumulative 10y growth:
EU28 - 35.22% Non-EU - 87.56%
EU ex UK 2004 - 11.40 EU ex UK 2014 - 15.58 10y cum - 36.7%
Looking at ex-UK from 2009 after the EMU crisis developed the EU as a whole has grown by 8.7%, without the UK it is 5.7% growth.
Yes.
But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next. Take the 1970s. The best performing economies in the 1970s (the BRICs of the period) were dogs in the 1980s. The worst performing economies in the 1970s (like the UK) led the 1980s.
And in 2007, the best performing economies - in terms of GDP growth - in the previous decade were Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. They didn't have a very good following eight years.
Well, it's an attempt to be positive at least! It demonstrates very little confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the UK - we need to be in Europe because we are plagued with self-doubt, we are not at peace with ourselves and we are an economic basket-case. Hmmh, positive, you say?
The economic situation has changed dramatically since the 1970s though - arguably driven by our own reforms rather than Europe, and partly due to the growth in the financial services industry worldwide which we were well placed to capitalise on
As for "being a peace with ourselves", I don't know how old you are Alastair. I'm 40 and, from my perspective - and from the perspective of virtual everyone else in my generation - the Empire is a part of our history. It's interesting that we did it, it's nice to know the details but it has absolutely zero impact on day to day life or my philosophy of what it means to be British. That wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s (when our politicians had been growing up during the 50s and 60s) but today it's utterly irrelevant
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Since it's not up to Leave what happens next, it's irrelevant.
Actually it almost certainly will be up to the Conservative Cabinet members who are backing Leave. It would be entirely possible and useful for voters if they set out what policy they would pursue.
They daren't because the anti-immigration mob would soon be bearing down on them with their torches and pitchforks.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Well you may not value the ability to make decisions that are designed to best meet the needs of the UK, but I do. I think that - over time - Britain will be a happier, stronger and more prosperous place than in the current set up. It is better to be cordial neighbours than grumpy housemates.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
As far as I can tell, economists estimate that the effect of Leave could be anything from a reduction of 2.5% in GDP to an increase of 1.5%. That seems an acceptable level of risk to me, in order to regain the ability to make those decisions.
I'm on 1-2% GDP down. That's less than one year's growth to put it in perspective. It's an acceptable level of risk, and the payoff will come from the fact that probably £5-6billion of net contributions (assuming we replace all EU spending in the UK pound for pound) can be used to reduce the deficit.
I understood that its closer to £10 billion going forward plus the ability to re-direct some of the £4bn to meet our Govt's decisions and not those of the EU. Fastest way to cut the deficit?
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
I'm always wary about those kind of extrapolations. If we'd been doing the calculation in 2009, then you could have said something like this:
"The Eurozone has grown at an average of 2.4% over the past eight years, ahead of the UK and the US. Furthermore, it has avoided the subprime and debt crises of the UK and the US."
Economics moves in cycles. And the Eurozone - despite its flaws - is due a cyclical upturn. (Why? Its consumers and businesses are relatively debt free. Government spending has been dramatically cut. Almost all Eurozone countries run current account surpluses. Its banks have been recapitalised. There has been substantial labour market reform. And, most importantly, savings rates have probably bottomed.)
That doesn't mean we want to be in bed with the Eurozone or in the EU. I wrote at length last night about why we should leave the EU, and shan't repeat myself. But I think the 'Eurozone is an economic wasteland' argument is a weak one.
I did the 10 year figures based on the IMF WEO:
There has been a lot said about trade and growth, well there are the growth stats from the IMF WEO:
2004 GDP (USD Tn, Nom):
EU28 (Yes I know it was 25 nations back then) - 13.70 Non-EU - 29.75
2014 GDP:
EU28 - 18.53 Non-EU - 58.74
Cumulative 10y growth:
EU28 - 35.22% Non-EU - 87.56%
EU ex UK 2004 - 11.40 EU ex UK 2014 - 15.58 10y cum - 36.7%
Looking at ex-UK from 2009 after the EMU crisis developed the EU as a whole has grown by 8.7%, without the UK it is 5.7% growth.
Yes.
But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next. Take the 1970s. The best performing economies in the 1970s (the BRICs of the period) were dogs in the 1980s. The worst performing economies in the 1970s (like the UK) led the 1980s.
And in 2007, the best performing economies - in terms of GDP growth - in the previous decade were Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. They didn't have a very good following eight years.
Agreed, I'm just presenting the figures as they are. What I would say is that I find it unlikely that the EU nations will somehow add rocket boosters to their growth profile in the next 20 years. Too many of them are already industrialised and have well developed domestic markets already. If we're going to be locked into a trading bloc then I would rather it be in a way that would allow me to make my own trade deals with Asian and LatAm nations.
A crucial deciding factor for me is immigration. I want to see a Britain where everyone can achieve their ambitions whether they come from a wealthy or poorer background. Equally, I want to see an immigration policy that is balanced and fair - where we treat everyone outside the UK equally whether they are from an EU country or not. Sadly, a fair immigration system is incompatible with our membership of the EU.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that only by leaving the EU can we be genuinely free to put in place a fair immigration policy for ourselves.
As the son of immigrants who came from a non-EU country, this is my deeply held conviction on an issue that matters deeply to me. I have always told aspiring politicians to be true to themselves, and it would be hypocritical to ignore that advice myself in order to further my career.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
What will be the effects of Turkey's entry?
Answer: The 15th largest economy in the world, member of G20, joining, will be good for everyone.
Leave demonstrably is not at peace with itself. It has no coherent vision for the future, just a raving dislike of the present. A decision to vote for Leave will be a decision to leave present moorings and drift on the currents. Those currents look pretty choppy and the Leave ship is rudderless and the crew is arguing among itself.
Leave is not one monolithic organisation - there are different people with different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU.
The likes of @DavidL, @Casino_Royale, @rcs1000 are all at peace with themselves. The likes of Tony Blair may be at peace with themselves - but they probably shouldn't be.
Lots of different reasons for not wanting to be part of the EU, lots of them mutually contradictory.
This is not about individual happiness - if so, I suggest ardent Leavers take up watercolour painting, origami or rock climbing rather than tinkering with Britain's place in the world. It is about setting a direction for the nation as a whole: collective happiness if you like. There is nothing on the Leave side that gives me any hope that a decision to Leave would increase the collective happiness of the nation. The very opposite.
Since it's not up to Leave what happens next, it's irrelevant.
Actually it almost certainly will be up to the Conservative Cabinet members who are backing Leave. It would be entirely possible and useful for voters if they set out what policy they would pursue.
They daren't because the anti-immigration mob would soon be bearing down on them with their torches and pitchforks.
Your effort to paint Leave supporters as racists is a bit sad.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
£5 within next 20 years?
Wow. Easiest money I ever made. Done.
A few months ago I was at dinner with a Cypriot friend of mine who owns a chain of hotels in Cyprus, Greece and the UK. We were discussing Turkey. He said the following (and I'm paraphrasing slightly here):
"Imagine that 30 years ago, the French invaded the UK and set up a puppet regime in Northern England and evicted 10s of thousands of Brits without compensation. Now, the French are applying to join a club you're a member of. If a Cypriot politician attempted to sign a treaty allowing the Turks into the EU he would be signing his own death warrant. He would be killed. I'm not joking, it wouldn't be political suicide it would be actual suicide."
He was deadly serious. There is simply no way the Cypriot parliament would pass an accession treaty with Turkey.
Not to mention that the Turks don't actually want to join the EU, so the whole thing is a bit of a charade anyway.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
What will be the effects of Turkey's entry?
Answer: The 15th largest economy in the world, member of G20, joining, will be good for everyone.
A crucial deciding factor for me is immigration. I want to see a Britain where everyone can achieve their ambitions whether they come from a wealthy or poorer background. Equally, I want to see an immigration policy that is balanced and fair - where we treat everyone outside the UK equally whether they are from an EU country or not. Sadly, a fair immigration system is incompatible with our membership of the EU.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that only by leaving the EU can we be genuinely free to put in place a fair immigration policy for ourselves.
As the son of immigrants who came from a non-EU country, this is my deeply held conviction on an issue that matters deeply to me. I have always told aspiring politicians to be true to themselves, and it would be hypocritical to ignore that advice myself in order to further my career.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
What will be the effects of Turkey's entry?
Answer: The 15th largest economy in the world, member of G20, joining, will be good for everyone.
AlastairM "Remain are evidently going to stick to a strategy that they believe will secure victory for them on 23 June of hammering away at the risks of taking a leap in the dark by voting to leave the EU. "
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING. 1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry? 2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years? 3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
If you're so sure Turkey will join the EU, put your money where your mouth is, and offer me a bet.
What will be the effects of Turkey's entry?
Answer: The 15th largest economy in the world, member of G20, joining, will be good for everyone.
Do we not trade with Turkey already?
I believe there is a free trade agreement between the EU and Turkey already.
I don't think the assumption that Conservative Leavers are predominantly in favour of an EEA-style deal is necessarily right. Some are (Owen Paterson, for example, has argued for such a deal), but IDS, and it seems Boris, and as we've just seen Syed Kamall, are not. I don't think there's a consensus either way. Also, a lot of ordinary party members are Leavers largely because of concerns on immigration.
Comments
Hard science is and has been truly international (except when private finance is involved). Would that the world could follow that example.
By the way, I omitted economics from my list. I wonder what Keynes, fast forwarded to 2016, would have said.
"In the US at the moment the two main parties are in primary season, and (if you hadn’t noticed) the media coverage is being dominated by Donald Trump. He is as short as 11/4 (26.7%) to be the next US President. Even without building any sort of model, we can tell you that the real chance of Trump winning is much, much less than 26.7%. He should probably be nearer 50/1 (2%). Donald Trump is a good case-study of a lot that is wrong with election analysis."
"But it’s very unlikely Trump can win the Republican nomination anyway. The rules governing the electoral process of finding a Republican nominees are complex, but have a built in disadvantage to candidates like Trump who are very unpopular in Democratic leaning constituencies."
I suggest a large bet on Villa on sunday... would be ultimate 'spursy'
"Even without building any sort of model, we can tell you..."
Your (theoretical) loss will be countered by someone else gaining by the UK's departure from the EU, and access to markets elsewhere.
Cameron could learn from Wilson and keep himself more in the background.The key time to release Cameron is when the postal votes start hitting the mat and on eve of poll.There also could be a very late swing to Remain.Even ukippers will start thinking twice of the costs of their place in the Costas escalating.
The reason the trading bloc argument isn't getting as much traction as Remain want is because of the figures I posted earlier. We have a massive annual trade deficit with the EU, only fools think that the EU would put up trade barriers with the UK if we left, and given that EFTA/EEA seems the most likely destination, at least initially, we're probably not going to lose out on any trade with the EU.
I've argued in the past that there is no reason for Cameron to resign in the event of a Leave vote, but I think it's now clear that he would. I expect that neither Osborne nor Hammond would want to be involved in future negotiations either.
The difficulty is that becomes very presumptious for Vote Leave spokesmen to assume they'll be in charge.
Yu just want people who disagree with your high handed and arrogant analyses to just shut up.
Meanwhile in the real world the EU's trade deficit with the UK hits a record. A day after its central bank leader desperately tries to show the economy is actually living with one of the most extreme policy moves ever seen in the history of monetary policy.
Those are facts. They support an argument the European economy is in desperate trouble, and could hardly bear any kind of disruption, let alone one that meted out a punishment beating to a vital export market like Britain.
I can easily make a convenient appointment if I want to discuss my “normal” states of ill-health, but if something flares up, or something else were to happen there’s little now (11.24 Fri) until Wednesday.
Not easy to prove, I grant you, and the Leave campaign has been abysmal in making this argument in any sort of coherent way for more than about two minutes. But that is the choice, it seems to me.
One side is fearful of what might happen if we leave. The other side is fearful of what might happen if we stay.
The Fight of the Fearties, as Mr Malcolm G might put it.
I resile from parts of UKIP and the likes of Galloway as much as you do. There is - as @RichardTyndall has spelt out - virtually no chance that a post-LEAVE UK will end up in anything other than an EFTA/EEA type arrangement.
Finally, the single market for services is a joke, losing access to it won't be the end of the world and the City will innovate around any loss of passport rights if the EU decide to start a trade war. The development of the eurodollar all those years ago shows that it can be done.
Absolutely. When was the last time interest rates were negative? how many times in economic history have they been negative in a major economy?
Remainers act like its ho-hum whatever. The fact is that these are desperate times for Europe.
But you will either get EFTA/EEA or WTO. You should be able to manage with either, even if it is less good than now.
What will be an issue is services, balanced against free movement. Basically that is what the Brexit dilemma is about. Which would we want?
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support membership of EFTA/EEA, like Norway, or would you prefer a looser arrangement:
[ ] EFTA/EEA
[ ] A looser arrangement"
This would avoid the outcome where we invoke Article 50, then spend four years arguing with ourselves about relationship we want with the EU, and we are still - therefore - members when the 2020 election comes around.
Barriers are erected to be circumnavigated.
The hard core (Eurozone) of the 'largest trading block in the world' saw its GDP rise by a TOTAL of just 0.6% in the eight years since 2007. It is an economy in very serious relative decline, a decline that will worsen in the next 15-20 years due to unfavourable demographics.
It makes no economic sense to be part of a preferential trading arrangement with this group of countries.
It might have made some sense 40-50 years ago but the world has moved on - and so must we.
The key to this country's economic success over last several centuries has been adaptability. Once upon a time our foreign trade was all about cloth and wool to the low countries, then we had a transatlantic focus, then the imperial trade to Asia and Africa.
Now we are in the midst of another shift, away from European trade and to a more worldwide pattern. Our trading arrangements, diplomacy and political structures need to reflect that change. That means exiting the EU and managing the process by which we interlock with the rest of the world economy (inc the EU) ourselves.
"In the event of a vote for Britain leaving the EU, would you support the continued free movement of people within the EU area including the UK?"
perhaps we need a shorthand for this, as in: "May I refer my PB friend @Charles to my Answer 4."
I've said it again and again, I agree that the EU won't offer single market access without also forcing the four freedoms. I'm comfortable with that, and I think the majority of the country will be as well. Only in the case where there is an overwhelming vote to Leave (as in 66% or more) would we need to consider restricting the four freedoms. That scenario is highly unlikely.
I'll live with not being able to contribute and losing what little "influence" we have for the massive repatriation of power and money we would get by moving to EEA membership. I think it's a good compromise, and as we develop non-EU trade relationships everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
It really did make a mark that it's neither shiny and new, nor successful politically or economically.
@SamCoatesTimes: .... And no tariffs for lots of trade
None of this, however, has the faintest relevance to whether the UK should stay in the EU or not.
"The Eurozone has grown at an average of 2.4% over the past eight years, ahead of the UK and the US. Furthermore, it has avoided the subprime and debt crises of the UK and the US."
Economics moves in cycles. And the Eurozone - despite its flaws - is due a cyclical upturn. (Why? Its consumers and businesses are relatively debt free. Government spending has been dramatically cut. Almost all Eurozone countries run current account surpluses. Its banks have been recapitalised. There has been substantial labour market reform. And, most importantly, savings rates have probably bottomed.)
That doesn't mean we want to be in bed with the Eurozone or in the EU. I wrote at length last night about why we should leave the EU, and shan't repeat myself. But I think the 'Eurozone is an economic wasteland' argument is a weak one.
Richard's views are exactly the same as the government's
Leader of the Conservatives in the EU Parliament and London MEP Dr Syed Kamall will vote for the UK to Leave the EU. https://t.co/D08rUUSJ7B
Contrast this with the leap in the dark that we will take by REMAINING.
1. What will be the effects of Turkey's entry?
2. What will be the effects of shackling 40% of our trade to an economic model that has had almost no growth in 9 years?
3. What will be the effect of having to adopt EU product rules driven by "climate change" and not driven by "meeting customer needs" on the products that we are trying to sell in global markets? Think power limits on vacuum cleaners as one example of thousands.
Perhaps they can see what many REMAINERS can't or won't, about Britain's ability to have a global rather than narrowly European future.
To put in context: the Bank of Japan owns government debt equivalent to 40% of GDP. For the UK, its about 30%, the US is 25%. And the ECB owns debt equivalent to - what - 17% of Eurozone GDP. Its QE is still pretty small scale compared to what happened in the UK, Japan and the US.
And nor was the ECB the first to go down the negative interest rate route. It's a path the Danish, the Japanese, the Swiss and the Swedish have all gone down. And in Sweden it worked: Swedish Q4 GDP was us 3.7% year-over-year - the highest of any reasonably sized country in the world. (Ireland, which clocked a 9.2% year-over-year GDP growth number in Q4 doesn't really count.)
There has been a lot said about trade and growth, well there are the growth stats from the IMF WEO:
2004 GDP (USD Tn, Nom):
EU28 (Yes I know it was 25 nations back then) - 13.70
Non-EU - 29.75
2014 GDP:
EU28 - 18.53
Non-EU - 58.74
Cumulative 10y growth:
EU28 - 35.22%
Non-EU - 87.56%
EU ex UK 2004 - 11.40
EU ex UK 2014 - 15.58
10y cum - 36.7%
Looking at ex-UK from 2009 after the EMU crisis developed the EU as a whole has grown by 8.7%, without the UK it is 5.7% growth.
Negative interest rates is an extreme policy move. Apart from modern day Japan, has it ever been tried at any time by any major economy ever?
To make it worse, another major reasson people support Leave is because of an unrealistic idea that somehow we'd be free of irksome regulations if we left the EU. (I heard a good example yesterday - the EU regulations for rest periods for HGV drivers. These are much the same for non-EU countries in Europe, through a separate international agreement AETR).
But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next. Take the 1970s. The best performing economies in the 1970s (the BRICs of the period) were dogs in the 1980s. The worst performing economies in the 1970s (like the UK) led the 1980s.
And in 2007, the best performing economies - in terms of GDP growth - in the previous decade were Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. They didn't have a very good following eight years.
Because of immigration.
Fastest way to cut the deficit?
Answer: The 15th largest economy in the world, member of G20, joining, will be good for everyone.
http://www.politico.eu/article/canada-may-be-loser-in-us-eu-trade-deal/
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
Done.
A few months ago I was at dinner with a Cypriot friend of mine who owns a chain of hotels in Cyprus, Greece and the UK. We were discussing Turkey. He said the following (and I'm paraphrasing slightly here):
"Imagine that 30 years ago, the French invaded the UK and set up a puppet regime in Northern England and evicted 10s of thousands of Brits without compensation. Now, the French are applying to join a club you're a member of. If a Cypriot politician attempted to sign a treaty allowing the Turks into the EU he would be signing his own death warrant. He would be killed. I'm not joking, it wouldn't be political suicide it would be actual suicide."
He was deadly serious. There is simply no way the Cypriot parliament would pass an accession treaty with Turkey.
Not to mention that the Turks don't actually want to join the EU, so the whole thing is a bit of a charade anyway.
What is he prepared to give up to achieve that?