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.
So the benefits of them joining to the existing members of the EU are what exactly?
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.
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.
So the benefits of them joining to the existing members of the EU are what exactly?
They aren't going to join the EU. It would require Turkey to change itself too much. It's incredibly unpopular in Turkey. And the Cypriots and Greeks would veto it.
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.
So the benefits of them joining to the existing members of the EU are what exactly?
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.
They are doing it to extort money from the EU. €3bn becomes €6bn becomes €12bn soon. Anyone who can't see that is a fool. Germany are forcing the EU (including us) to pay for their stupidity.
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
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.
They are doing it to extort money from the EU. €3bn becomes €6bn becomes €12bn soon. Anyone who can't see that is a fool. Germany are forcing the EU (including us) to pay for their stupidity.
That is a much more likely scenario than Turkish accession to the EU.
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.
We had to get a visa, though, when we went there. IIRC it was granted on payment of a new £10 note.
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.
Richard, I have negotiated with more than 10 foreign governments. What really mattered was how much they needed you compared to the alternatives that they sometimes had. The most difficult ones were those mavericks with an ideological view (communism, anti-colonialism) that rendered a deal impossible. When I look at the EU I do not see a group led by mavericks. I do see that some Germany and France need us to spend tens of billions more than we sell to them. Their view of us will be balanced by that and 3 factors; 1) their economies fear further disruption at this time - particularly France 2) the EU will be annoyed at loss of £10bn pa (which we may negotiate to phase in the cuts) but 3) they do not want to drive us into creating an alternative EU through their over-reaction.
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.
They are doing it to extort money from the EU. €3bn becomes €6bn becomes €12bn soon. Anyone who can't see that is a fool. Germany are forcing the EU (including us) to pay for their stupidity.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
I think 1.0-1.5% for the next 15 years is probably about right. Ultimately output per worker - once you are industrialised - struggles to rise at more than 1% or so a year. And that, by the way, is true for us as well.
But it is worth remembering that China's working age population peaks next year. Korea and Japan already have declining working age populations, with consequent modest economic growth.
The issue is thayt the places with growing working age populations (outside the US and Canada) are deeply unstable and/or unfriendly.
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.
We had to get a visa, though, when we went there. IIRC it was granted on payment of a new £10 note.
They charge Aussies more, which really annoyed people in the queue who had chosen to travel on their Australian rather than British passport
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.
Richard, I have negotiated with more than 10 foreign governments. What really mattered was how much they needed you compared to the alternatives that they sometimes had. The most difficult ones were those mavericks with an ideological view (communism, anti-colonialism) that rendered a deal impossible. When I look at the EU I do not see a group led by mavericks. I do see that some Germany and France need us to spend tens of billions more than we sell to them. Their view of us will be balanced by that and 3 factors; 1) their economies fear further disruption at this time - particularly France 2) the EU will be annoyed at loss of £10bn pa (which we may negotiate to phase in the cuts) but 3) they do not want to drive us into creating an alternative EU through their over-reaction.
3 is a bigger fear than some realise, without the UK being the bad guy it is going to fall to some other country to oppose the stupidity of Brussels, they may grow tired of playing the villain quite quickly.
Also, with the main non-EMU country leaving both Sweden and Denmark will have to review their EU membership, they will have no one left to fight for them and their votes and influence are worth even less than ours are.
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.
Richard, I have negotiated with more than 10 foreign governments. What really mattered was how much they needed you compared to the alternatives that they sometimes had. The most difficult ones were those mavericks with an ideological view (communism, anti-colonialism) that rendered a deal impossible. When I look at the EU I do not see a group led by mavericks. I do see that some Germany and France need us to spend tens of billions more than we sell to them. Their view of us will be balanced by that and 3 factors; 1) their economies fear further disruption at this time - particularly France 2) the EU will be annoyed at loss of £10bn pa (which we may negotiate to phase in the cuts) but 3) they do not want to drive us into creating an alternative EU through their over-reaction.
I agree entirely, except for one small but important point: we wouldn't be negotiating with the 'EU' as a homogeneous body, the 27 individual countries would also have to be squared, probably unanimously. And of course they each have different agendas and priorities. For some of them - as we have just seen in Cameron's renegotiation - free movement is a very high priority. It's a rational price for what the UK would want, namely access to the free market in services.
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.
Most national opinion polls are showing UKIP's support slightly up compared to the general election. Perhaps more evidence that local government by-elections aren't a good indicator of anything much.
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.
Most national opinion polls are showing UKIP's support slightly up compared to the general election. Perhaps more evidence that local government by-elections aren't a good indicator of anything much.
I think the issue is that UKIP is very poorly organised at a local level. I wouldn't read too much into it.
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.
They are doing it to extort money from the EU. €3bn becomes €6bn becomes €12bn soon. Anyone who can't see that is a fool. Germany are forcing the EU (including us) to pay for their stupidity.
I don't think Europe (EU or otherwise) is in a strong position to face anyone down over this. There is a huge number of people heading in its direction that it doesn't want to receive but can't bring itself to turn away by force (no one is up for the Katie Hopkins solution). So it needs deals with states on its borders and it will have to offer inducements.
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.
Yes, but I'm interested in what is best for the country than the Conservative Party.
The Conservatives are a tool; their objectives happen to currently be aligned with ours but that hasn't always been the case and may well cease to be in the future
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
Not to forget either that globalisation continues unabated and will continue to do so more and more indefinitely. The world is metaphorically shrinking and geographical proximity is becoming ever more meaningless.
When I grew up as a teenager in the 90s in Australia as ex-pats it cost a small fortune to phone internationally and so we had to be brief on the phone when we called my grandparents. Now I'm a parent and my daughter's grandparents (my in-laws) live in Canada and rather than very occasional, brief, expensive phone calls on special occasions she sees them every Sunday via Skype video calls - for free.
Technological breakthroughs like that don't just help distant families but businesses too. The world is smaller and it is cheaper and easier to conduct business with clients and customers all across the globe than ever before. Technology will continue to improve too.
The EU is not just shrinking as a share of the global marketplace but the cost of us doing business with the growing rest of the world is ever-shrinking too. The potential trade with the rest of the world far exceeds any potential trade with our small corner of the globe.
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.
I haven't done any math, to be honest - it's just a gut feel. It'll probably be close to 1% than 2%, but 0.6% feels low. Trend growth will be higher.
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.
Richard, I have negotiated with more than 10 foreign governments. What really mattered was how much they needed you compared to the alternatives that they sometimes had. The most difficult ones were those mavericks with an ideological view (communism, anti-colonialism) that rendered a deal impossible. When I look at the EU I do not see a group led by mavericks. I do see that some Germany and France need us to spend tens of billions more than we sell to them. Their view of us will be balanced by that and 3 factors; 1) their economies fear further disruption at this time - particularly France 2) the EU will be annoyed at loss of £10bn pa (which we may negotiate to phase in the cuts) but 3) they do not want to drive us into creating an alternative EU through their over-reaction.
I agree entirely, except for one small but important point: we wouldn't be negotiating with the 'EU' as a homogeneous body, the 27 individual countries would also have to be squared, probably unanimously. And of course they each have different agendas and priorities. For some of them - as we have just seen in Cameron's renegotiation - free movement is a very high priority. It's a rational price for what the UK would want, namely access to the free market in services.
OK. Germany will with our departure be the dominant funder of the EU. Germany wants a deal and most of the rest of the EU want German (and our reducing) funding... The EU bureacrats are also anxious to make a deal happen to pay their wages etc where they get some funding from us (albeit on a reducing basis each year). Looks to me a good basis to work a deal out. Year 1 and 2 we pay 100%, year 3 80%, year 4 60%, year 5 40%, year 6 20% and all future years.
William Turvill From @TimesDiary What does Met Police chief wish for? "Double the salary." Er. "What I meant was double the budget." https://t.co/vkMXm90L2k
'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.
*snort*
You really think that the Eurozone avoided the sub-prime crisis? They were the suckers.
I see another labour mp is attending a gender segregated rally with an Islamic extremist on the panel...imagine if a tory attended a rally with Britain first ppl...
'But it is worth remembering that China's working age population peaks next year'
Indeed, though there is a reasonable case to be made there for productivity to grow more than 1% p.a I think. I am relatively bearish on China but the chances of it growing 0.5-1.5% p.a in the next 15 years on avge are fairly low I think.
I'm also not sure I would call markets like India, Indonesia, Mexico and even Canada and Australia (all with decent projected working population growth) deeply unstable or hostile...
Pippa Crerer .@SadiqKhan says he'd "almost certainly" ask Labour supporters to give their 2nd pref votes to Women Equality Party's Sophie Walker #WOWLDN
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.)
In Sweden it worked because they have a functioning banking system (we discussed this yesterday). The banking systems in Europe (including the UK) are largely broken.
Pippa Crerer .@SadiqKhan says he'd "almost certainly" ask Labour supporters to give their 2nd pref votes to Women Equality Party's Sophie Walker #WOWLDN
OK. Germany will with our departure be the dominant funder of the EU. Germany wants a deal and most of the rest of the EU want German (and our reducing) funding... The EU bureacrats are also anxious to make a deal happen to pay their wages etc where they get some funding from us (albeit on a reducing basis each year). Looks to me a good basis to work a deal out. Year 1 and 2 we pay 100%, year 3 80%, year 4 60%, year 5 40%, year 6 20% and all future years.
I don't see our direct funding as being a big factor in the Brexit decision, TBH. The Leave side have an entirely legitimate point, that we could save some money in contributions to the EU budget. No-one can say exactly how much, but perhaps a net effect of a few £bn a year in an EEA-style deal and more in a looser arrangement. It's enough to be a factor to include in one's assessment, but it's not decisive in my view, not least because even in the most optimistic scenario the direct and indirect costs of the Brexit transition would probably outweigh the saving for many years to come.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
Not to forget either that globalisation continues unabated and will continue to do so more and more indefinitely. The world is metaphorically shrinking and geographical proximity is becoming ever more meaningless.
When I grew up as a teenager in the 90s in Australia as ex-pats it cost a small fortune to phone internationally and so we had to be brief on the phone when we called my grandparents. Now I'm a parent and my daughter's grandparents (my in-laws) live in Canada and rather than very occasional, brief, expensive phone calls on special occasions she sees them every Sunday via Skype video calls - for free.
Technological breakthroughs like that don't just help distant families but businesses too. The world is smaller and it is cheaper and easier to conduct business with clients and customers all across the globe than ever before. Technology will continue to improve too.
The EU is not just shrinking as a share of the global marketplace but the cost of us doing business with the growing rest of the world is ever-shrinking too. The potential trade with the rest of the world far exceeds any potential trade with our small corner of the globe.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
Mine was a recollection of a table from Andrew Neil, but yours is a better way to remember.
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.
No, it will be good (economically) for the *aggregate* but not for everyone individually.
Pippa Crerer .@SadiqKhan says he'd "almost certainly" ask Labour supporters to give their 2nd pref votes to Women Equality Party's Sophie Walker #WOWLDN
William Turvill From @TimesDiary What does Met Police chief wish for? "Double the salary." Er. "What I meant was double the budget." https://t.co/vkMXm90L2k
It must be a real effort for him to scrape by on nearly £5500 a week, plus benefits. Struggling into work in a shiny new Range Rover with TV must be tough.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
I think that's the old budget Charles, the current cycle has a much smaller rebate element.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
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.
Yes, but I'm interested in what is best for the country than the Conservative Party.
The Conservatives are a tool; their objectives happen to currently be aligned with ours but that hasn't always been the case and may well cease to be in the future
Indeed everyone wants what they think is best for the country (tweaked to their own taste).
What interests me is what's likely to happen. The Conservative Party is wallowing in incompetence and division, protected by Jeremy Corbyn (who can never have dreamt he would end his career as the Conservatives' human shield). This doesn't seem like a stable state of affairs.
OK. Germany will with our departure be the dominant funder of the EU. Germany wants a deal and most of the rest of the EU want German (and our reducing) funding... The EU bureacrats are also anxious to make a deal happen to pay their wages etc where they get some funding from us (albeit on a reducing basis each year). Looks to me a good basis to work a deal out. Year 1 and 2 we pay 100%, year 3 80%, year 4 60%, year 5 40%, year 6 20% and all future years.
I don't see our direct funding as being a big factor in the Brexit decision, TBH. The Leave side have an entirely legitimate point, that we could save some money in contributions to the EU budget. No-one can say exactly how much, but perhaps a net effect of a few £bn a year in an EEA-style deal and more in a looser arrangement. It's enough to be a factor to include in one's assessment, but it's not decisive in my view, not least because even in the most optimistic scenario the direct and indirect costs of the Brexit transition would probably outweigh the saving for many years to come.
My recollection is that the cost of AV was a factor in the way people voted and the AV figures are much lower than the £10bn pa of the UK funding (net) to EU.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
Mine was a recollection of a table from Andrew Neil, but yours is a better way to remember.
The negative interest rates that are becoming increasingly common in the EZ are dangerous and ECB QE seems, so far, to be doing nothing about it.
In most commercial loan agreements with Banks there is a schedule which contains a complicated way in which the Bank is entitled to increase the cost of borrowing in the event that the Bank's own cost of borrowing increases.
Most people pay very little attention to it because it looks really complicated and has symbols like ∑ in it that very few lawyers, who draft these things, actually understand. The problem I foresee is that the cost of borrowing by banks is going to increase markedly if we continue to increase capital requirements (as we will with Basel III) and impose negative interest rates on a significant part of that capital by forcing banks to hold it in bonds.
These clauses, which have largely been ignored up to now, threaten to become something of a time bomb by which the cost of additional capital is passed to the existing borrowers of the banks. Real interest rates in the real economy will in fact rise and investment will suffer accordingly.
All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to.
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
Not to forget either that globalisation continues unabated and will continue to do so more and more indefinitely. The world is metaphorically shrinking and geographical proximity is becoming ever more meaningless.
When I grew up as a teenager in the 90s in Australia as ex-pats it cost a small fortune to phone internationally and so we had to be brief on the phone when we called my grandparents. Now I'm a parent and my daughter's grandparents (my in-laws) live in Canada and rather than very occasional, brief, expensive phone calls on special occasions she sees them every Sunday via Skype video calls - for free.
Technological breakthroughs like that don't just help distant families but businesses too. The world is smaller and it is cheaper and easier to conduct business with clients and customers all across the globe than ever before. Technology will continue to improve too.
The EU is not just shrinking as a share of the global marketplace but the cost of us doing business with the growing rest of the world is ever-shrinking too. The potential trade with the rest of the world far exceeds any potential trade with our small corner of the globe.
Does the EU share include the UK? For the purposes of such discussions we shouldn't include our own GDP in the EU's share of the global marketplace. If we define the rest of the EU minus the UK as rEU then those are the figures we should look at. Considering the UK is growing faster than rEU and the UK's growth prospects in the future are better than rEU's too then that further diminishes the significance of rUK.
'because even in the most optimistic scenario the direct and indirect costs of the Brexit transition would probably outweigh the saving for many years to come'
You need to stop presenting your opinions as facts Richard - I know it's hard, but...
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
Mine was a recollection of a table from Andrew Neil, but yours is a better way to remember.
I do remember the Pauillac 1990...
and there was I enjoying a mere half bottle of a 2014 cotes du rhone (forgot the precise one) the other night on recommendation of the french waiter and saying it was "very drinkable".
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
Mine was a recollection of a table from Andrew Neil, but yours is a better way to remember.
I do remember the Pauillac 1990...
and there was I enjoying a mere half bottle of a 2014 cotes du rhone (forgot the precise one) the other night on recommendation of the french waiter and saying it was "very drinkable".
Does the EU share include the UK? For the purposes of such discussions we shouldn't include our own GDP in the EU's share of the global marketplace. If we define the rest of the EU minus the UK as rEU then those are the figures we should look at. Considering the UK is growing faster than rEU and the UK's growth prospects in the future are better than rEU's too then that further diminishes the significance of rUK.
''All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to. ''
An excellent analysis, and one that is, if anything, too conservative in its conclusion.
Lib Dems chances in London Assembly elections? They had 2 seats last time, down 1.
With UKIP presumably fighting a more professional campaign than last time it has to be plausible for UKIP to overtake Lib Dems in the list and maybe LDs are down to 1 or 0? Just asking. Await "wet dream" accusations from Snr Senior esq.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
'But there is very little correlation between one decade's economic growth and the next'
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
I think 1.0-1.5% for the next 15 years is probably about right. Ultimately output per worker - once you are industrialised - struggles to rise at more than 1% or so a year. And that, by the way, is true for us as well.
But it is worth remembering that China's working age population peaks next year. Korea and Japan already have declining working age populations, with consequent modest economic growth.
The issue is thayt the places with growing working age populations (outside the US and Canada) are deeply unstable and/or unfriendly.
We also have a growing working age population don't we?
And I thought in the long term 2-2.5% productivity growth was traditionally possible thanks to technological improvements etc - and I don't see any reason for that to change. The EU is shrinking precisely because it is not achieving that rate of long term growth while I believe America (and over the long term the UK) is.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
We're not doing badly, but we are not doing as well as we could as the EU forbids us from signing free trade agreements. I'd like to see a source for other member states doing significantly better than us, or growing significantly better over the long term.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
The government gold plates too many EU regulations and our companies are a bit too honest. Look at the VW scandal for tips on how European companies operate. People are trying to fob it off as a one off, some bad eggs but it goes much deeper.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
I think that's the old budget Charles, the current cycle has a much smaller rebate element.
Correct. Our current gross contributions are around £19.5 billion and net around £9.8 billion although I believe this was supposed to drop slightly.
Does the EU share include the UK? For the purposes of such discussions we shouldn't include our own GDP in the EU's share of the global marketplace. If we define the rest of the EU minus the UK as rEU then those are the figures we should look at. Considering the UK is growing faster than rEU and the UK's growth prospects in the future are better than rEU's too then that further diminishes the significance of rUK.
Far more relevant a figure that, so less than one fifth already in 2016 almost certainly and still shrinking.
I'm far more concerned with the remaining (and faster growing) 80% of the world. I feel sorry for little Europeaners that only care about 1/5th and shrinking of the world.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
I think that's the old budget Charles, the current cycle has a much smaller rebate element.
Correct. Our current gross contributions are around £19.5 billion and net around £9.8 billion although I believe this was supposed to drop slightly.
Why would it drop when our economy is growing faster than the rest of Europe's which is why we were presented with a surcharge recently. The EUs structure penalises success and as we are far more successful our share of contributions is bound to increase further.
The Atlantic's piece on Obama's foreign policy deserves far more than the "insult to Britain" coverage it has been getting here. I haven't read it all yet but hope to finish it by Easter.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
We're not doing badly, but we are not doing as well as we could as the EU forbids us from signing free trade agreements. I'd like to see a source for other member states doing significantly better than us, or growing significantly better over the long term.
Southams position seems to be that we should only ever change from status quo if there are no costs whatsoever even if benefits dramatically outweigh them. Its an extremely conservative position.
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?
My understanding was it was £18bn gross less £6bn rebate giving £12bn net of which £6-7bn is spent in the UK under various EU programmes. But that was based on a half-remembered conversation with someone over a rather good bottle of wine...
I think that's the old budget Charles, the current cycle has a much smaller rebate element.
Correct. Our current gross contributions are around £19.5 billion and net around £9.8 billion although I believe this was supposed to drop slightly.
Why would it drop when our economy is growing faster than the rest of Europe's which is why we were presented with a surcharge recently. The EUs structure penalises success and as we are far more successful our share of contributions is bound to increase further.
I think it is because the CAP is set to fall a bit this budget as a proportion of spending (though still growing in real terms).
How would that work then? Merkel goes to BMW and says "I am going to jack up the price of the cars you sell to the UK, but you won't see a penny of it"
Do BMW say
(a) OK fine no problem (b) No you're bl00dy not because we will lose sales and you will lose tax and we will have to make people redundant. As will our myriad suppliers.
Surely (b)...? Tariffs are self-defeating and net harmful, I thought everyone knew that by now
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.
But I keep being told that there is nothing racist about being anti-immigration, you can't have it both ways. I am just pointing out the major faultline in the LEAVE coalition. You can keep trying to sweep it under the carpet if you wish but it's going to come back to bite you before June that's for sure
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
The government gold plates too many EU regulations and our companies are a bit too honest. Look at the VW scandal for tips on how European companies operate. People are trying to fob it off as a one off, some bad eggs but it goes much deeper.
The government has been afflicted by the same malaise that infected the Foreign Office decades ago, and it's 'white flag waving' managed decline of 'Great' Britain.
How would that work then? Merkel goes to BMW and says "I am going to jack up the price of the cars you sell to the UK, but you won't see a penny of it"
Do BMW say
(a) OK fine no problem (b) No you're bl00dy not because we will lose sales and you will lose tax and we will have to make people redundant. As will our myriad suppliers.
Surely (b)...? Tariffs are self-defeating and net harmful, I thought everyone knew that by now
That is why there is not a single goods tariff across Europe, whether you are in or out of the Union.
Lib Dems chances in London Assembly elections? They had 2 seats last time, down 1.
With UKIP presumably fighting a more professional campaign than last time it has to be plausible for UKIP to overtake Lib Dems in the list and maybe LDs are down to 1 or 0? Just asking. Await "wet dream" accusations from Snr Senior esq.
Trouble is that I don't think that UKIP is any more professional than it was at the 2015 GE. One of the reasons why I will let my membership lapse in May. When and if it gets it's act together I may consider rejoining, only may, mind.
The negative interest rates that are becoming increasingly common in the EZ are dangerous and ECB QE seems, so far, to be doing nothing about it.
In most commercial loan agreements with Banks there is a schedule which contains a complicated way in which the Bank is entitled to increase the cost of borrowing in the event that the Bank's own cost of borrowing increases.
Most people pay very little attention to it because it looks really complicated and has symbols like ∑ in it that very few lawyers, who draft these things, actually understand. The problem I foresee is that the cost of borrowing by banks is going to increase markedly if we continue to increase capital requirements (as we will with Basel III) and impose negative interest rates on a significant part of that capital by forcing banks to hold it in bonds.
These clauses, which have largely been ignored up to now, threaten to become something of a time bomb by which the cost of additional capital is passed to the existing borrowers of the banks. Real interest rates in the real economy will in fact rise and investment will suffer accordingly.
All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to.
'And I thought in the long term 2-2.5% productivity growth was traditionally possible thanks to technological improvements etc'
That's at the very top of achieved levels even for faster-growing emerging markets. Robert is quite right that for more advanced economies, even 1% pa is quite fast. Something like 0.4-0.8 pa is the more normal range
How would that work then? Merkel goes to BMW and says "I am going to jack up the price of the cars you sell to the UK, but you won't see a penny of it"
Do BMW say
(a) OK fine no problem (b) No you're bl00dy not because we will lose sales and you will lose tax and we will have to make people redundant. As will our myriad suppliers.
Surely (b)...? Tariffs are self-defeating and net harmful, I thought everyone knew that by now
Toyota Lexus would happily take advantage, and grab some of BMW's market share.
Now THAT'S a potential growth market. And it is profoundly in our interests to make them prosperous, instead of beggaring them to suit French farmers.
The CAP is one of nastiest and most pernicious policies the globe has today.
Scrapping the CAP would do far more benefit to Africa than any Band Aid style fundraiser ever has.
This is the kind of protectionism that makes me want to leave the EU. It is an inward looking bloc which wants to protect the interests of a specific few special interest groups. That is not the way we think. The Germans want to protect their auto industry, the French their energy and agriculture industry. Look at our major industry, financial services, it is utterly dominated by offshore companies which London has adopted.
Now THAT'S a potential growth market. And it is profoundly in our interests to make them prosperous, instead of beggaring them to suit French farmers.
The CAP is one of nastiest and most pernicious policies the globe has today.
Scrapping the CAP would do far more benefit to Africa than any Band Aid style fundraiser ever has.
Absolutely. Plus, greater prosperity might encourage some of those unfortunates who want to come to Europe to stay where they are. Its win-win.
Not necessarily. Some economic evidence suggests that as nations develop and their populace becomes richer then that encourages rather than discourages migration. People can more afford to migrate.
OTOH then migration of wealthier, more educated professionals is less of an issue than unskilled, penniless migration.
'And I thought in the long term 2-2.5% productivity growth was traditionally possible thanks to technological improvements etc'
That's at the very top of achieved levels even for faster-growing emerging markets. Robert is quite right that for more advanced economies, even 1% pa is quite fast. Something like 0.4-0.8 pa is the more normal range
The negative interest rates that are becoming increasingly common in the EZ are dangerous and ECB QE seems, so far, to be doing nothing about it.
In most commercial loan agreements with Banks there is a schedule which contains a complicated way in which the Bank is entitled to increase the cost of borrowing in the event that the Bank's own cost of borrowing increases.
Most people pay very little attention to it because it looks really complicated and has symbols like ∑ in it that very few lawyers, who draft these things, actually understand. The problem I foresee is that the cost of borrowing by banks is going to increase markedly if we continue to increase capital requirements (as we will with Basel III) and impose negative interest rates on a significant part of that capital by forcing banks to hold it in bonds.
These clauses, which have largely been ignored up to now, threaten to become something of a time bomb by which the cost of additional capital is passed to the existing borrowers of the banks. Real interest rates in the real economy will in fact rise and investment will suffer accordingly.
All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to.
Lawyers don't understand "Sum" ?!
Lawyers were the one group relieved when VAT rose to 20%, because it made the maths so much easier.
Now THAT'S a potential growth market. And it is profoundly in our interests to make them prosperous, instead of beggaring them to suit French farmers.
The CAP is one of nastiest and most pernicious policies the globe has today.
Scrapping the CAP would do far more benefit to Africa than any Band Aid style fundraiser ever has.
This is the kind of protectionism that makes me want to leave the EU. It is an inward looking bloc which wants to protect the interests of a specific few special interest groups. That is not the way we think. The Germans want to protect their auto industry, the French their energy and agriculture industry. Look at our major industry, financial services, it is utterly dominated by offshore companies which London has adopted.
Could you imagine the French ever electing a leader who said to the farmers, sorry boys, the game's up, its unsustainable in the modern world, we're penalising successful businesses to fund you and hammering Africa into the bargain. We're thatcherising you.
That would never, never happen. Fine. Sort it out yourselves.
The negative interest rates that are becoming increasingly common in the EZ are dangerous and ECB QE seems, so far, to be doing nothing about it.
In most commercial loan agreements with Banks there is a schedule which contains a complicated way in which the Bank is entitled to increase the cost of borrowing in the event that the Bank's own cost of borrowing increases.
Most people pay very little attention to it because it looks really complicated and has symbols like ∑ in it that very few lawyers, who draft these things, actually understand. The problem I foresee is that the cost of borrowing by banks is going to increase markedly if we continue to increase capital requirements (as we will with Basel III) and impose negative interest rates on a significant part of that capital by forcing banks to hold it in bonds.
These clauses, which have largely been ignored up to now, threaten to become something of a time bomb by which the cost of additional capital is passed to the existing borrowers of the banks. Real interest rates in the real economy will in fact rise and investment will suffer accordingly.
All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to.
Lawyers don't understand "Sum" ?!
Lawyers were the one group relieved when VAT rose to 20%, because it made the maths so much easier.
It's easy.
Use Oxford University Arts Mathematics, as displayed in the Guardian.
The whole number set consists of "1" .. "2" .. "3" .. "lots".
Then if the bankers are spanked for a few more billions, or more capital, or whatever, it still counts as "lots", so you can keep making the same complaints because it still looks the same.
See also Green Housing Policy and Corbynomics, Zoe Williams etc.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
We're not doing badly, but we are not doing as well as we could as the EU forbids us from signing free trade agreements. I'd like to see a source for other member states doing significantly better than us, or growing significantly better over the long term.
Southams position seems to be that we should only ever change from status quo if there are no costs whatsoever even if benefits dramatically outweigh them. Its an extremely conservative position.
My position is that we should only change if we know it will be better to do so. Leave can offer no reassurance on this front.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
The government gold plates too many EU regulations and our companies are a bit too honest. Look at the VW scandal for tips on how European companies operate. People are trying to fob it off as a one off, some bad eggs but it goes much deeper.
The bottom line is that we do not make things people want to buy. Our services are lapped up, as is the output from our creative industries. We are brilliant at both and we reap the rewards. But in too many other areas we either offer second best or nothing at all.
'That is well outside of the range of 0.4 - 0.8 pa.'
The number you quote is for GDP per head, my numbers are for total or multi-factor productivity. For which the average pace in the US since 1973 has been less than 1% per year.
He is also advocating that all British companies and citizens lose freedoms they currently enjoy. Wonderful.
If you read that article, it does not show the EU's ability to conclude free trade deals in a good light. The deal with Canada was concluded in 2013, but Canada is still waiting as special interest groups in Europe crawl all over it.
Well, indeed. These are the people we will be negotiating with. The idea that they will just give us what we want and all within the space of two years is absurd.
As is the idea they're giving us what we want now.
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
I suggest as a minimum not losing any of the freedoms we currently have. Beyond that, I am not bothered. Other member states of the EU seem to have far fewer problems than us in trading with the rest of the world. What makes us so bad at doing it?
We're not doing badly, but we are not doing as well as we could as the EU forbids us from signing free trade agreements. I'd like to see a source for other member states doing significantly better than us, or growing significantly better over the long term.
Southams position seems to be that we should only ever change from status quo if there are no costs whatsoever even if benefits dramatically outweigh them. Its an extremely conservative position.
My position is that we should only change if we know it will be better to do so. Leave can offer no reassurance on this front.
I find it amazing that you have it within you to leave your home every morning if that is your worldview.
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.
But I keep being told that there is nothing racist about being anti-immigration, you can't have it both ways. I am just pointing out the major faultline in the LEAVE coalition. You can keep trying to sweep it under the carpet if you wish but it's going to come back to bite you before June that's for sure
The immigration baiter.
Justin Welby has just told people like you to take a hike.
Now THAT'S a potential growth market. And it is profoundly in our interests to make them prosperous, instead of beggaring them to suit French farmers.
Africa offers far fewer opportunities than India.
Not that it's an either/or.
Given that India has got a reformer as PM we have a good chance of forming lasting trade relations with them.
I have no idea how Britain is perceived in India these days, I would imagine its a rather complex set of emotions.
If JLR is anything to go by, the potential is promising.
Not really, for 20 years Congress ramped up anti-empire and anti-Britain rhetoric to cover for a failing economy and used the Ghandi name to win elections. People have realised that this is all rubbish and Modi has sought to form a real relationship with the UK. I think the resentment under Congress has definitely turned into, well maybe it wasn't all bad. Britain offers India an easy way into world trade as well as well as a significant international partner against terrorism.
Now THAT'S a potential growth market. And it is profoundly in our interests to make them prosperous, instead of beggaring them to suit French farmers.
Africa offers far fewer opportunities than India.
Not that it's an either/or.
Although Nigeria is close to $600bn in GDP (India is around $2bn) and a far more accessible market in many ways. If you pick your spots in Africa there is serious money to be made
Comments
True up to a point - especially for the emerging economies. But for the advanced economies you find a greater degree of persistence, especially over the longer-term abstracting from cyclical fluctuations ie. 15-20 years or more.
Alternatively look at EU growth prospects for the next 15-20 years another way; the demographics are terrible and largely baked in. Investment growth and therefore capital stock growth is sluggish. Productivity growth is also weak.
Unless investment or productivity growth improve dramatically, we can be pretty sure the EU is going to grow at around 0.5-1.5% per year on average over the next 15-20 years. And the upper bound of that is already optimistic.
This will almost certainly guarantee it will continue its relative decline and become a steadily less important export market for the UK.
I do see that some Germany and France need us to spend tens of billions more than we sell to them. Their view of us will be balanced by that and 3 factors;
1) their economies fear further disruption at this time - particularly France
2) the EU will be annoyed at loss of £10bn pa (which we may negotiate to phase in the cuts) but
3) they do not want to drive us into creating an alternative EU through their over-reaction.
Which politician is going to face them down now? None in the EU.
But it is worth remembering that China's working age population peaks next year. Korea and Japan already have declining working age populations, with consequent modest economic growth.
The issue is thayt the places with growing working age populations (outside the US and Canada) are deeply unstable and/or unfriendly.
Also, with the main non-EMU country leaving both Sweden and Denmark will have to review their EU membership, they will have no one left to fight for them and their votes and influence are worth even less than ours are.
The Conservatives are a tool; their objectives happen to currently be aligned with ours but that hasn't always been the case and may well cease to be in the future
When I grew up as a teenager in the 90s in Australia as ex-pats it cost a small fortune to phone internationally and so we had to be brief on the phone when we called my grandparents. Now I'm a parent and my daughter's grandparents (my in-laws) live in Canada and rather than very occasional, brief, expensive phone calls on special occasions she sees them every Sunday via Skype video calls - for free.
Technological breakthroughs like that don't just help distant families but businesses too. The world is smaller and it is cheaper and easier to conduct business with clients and customers all across the globe than ever before. Technology will continue to improve too.
The EU is not just shrinking as a share of the global marketplace but the cost of us doing business with the growing rest of the world is ever-shrinking too. The potential trade with the rest of the world far exceeds any potential trade with our small corner of the globe.
The Beeb have a stonking photo of him on their front page for this story...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
William Turvill
From @TimesDiary What does Met Police chief wish for? "Double the salary." Er. "What I meant was double the budget." https://t.co/vkMXm90L2k
You really think that the Eurozone avoided the sub-prime crisis? They were the suckers.
Indeed, though there is a reasonable case to be made there for productivity to grow more than 1% p.a I think. I am relatively bearish on China but the chances of it growing 0.5-1.5% p.a in the next 15 years on avge are fairly low I think.
I'm also not sure I would call markets like India, Indonesia, Mexico and even Canada and Australia (all with decent projected working population growth) deeply unstable or hostile...
Pippa Crerer
.@SadiqKhan says he'd "almost certainly" ask Labour supporters to give their 2nd pref votes to Women Equality Party's Sophie Walker #WOWLDN
Bring back Glass-Steagall!
They had 2 seats last time, down 1.
2004 31.53%
2005 30.48%
2006 30.01%
2007 30.75%
2008 30.29%
2009 28.57%
2010 25.97%
2011 25.32%
2012 23.40%
2013 23.84%
2014 23.98%
What interests me is what's likely to happen. The Conservative Party is wallowing in incompetence and division, protected by Jeremy Corbyn (who can never have dreamt he would end his career as the Conservatives' human shield). This doesn't seem like a stable state of affairs.
In most commercial loan agreements with Banks there is a schedule which contains a complicated way in which the Bank is entitled to increase the cost of borrowing in the event that the Bank's own cost of borrowing increases.
Most people pay very little attention to it because it looks really complicated and has symbols like ∑ in it that very few lawyers, who draft these things, actually understand. The problem I foresee is that the cost of borrowing by banks is going to increase markedly if we continue to increase capital requirements (as we will with Basel III) and impose negative interest rates on a significant part of that capital by forcing banks to hold it in bonds.
These clauses, which have largely been ignored up to now, threaten to become something of a time bomb by which the cost of additional capital is passed to the existing borrowers of the banks. Real interest rates in the real economy will in fact rise and investment will suffer accordingly.
All of which is a slightly dull way of saying that current economic policy in the EZ is a long way from optimal and not something that we want to be excessively tied to.
You need to stop presenting your opinions as facts Richard - I know it's hard, but...
So what do you propose? We stay shackled to a corpse that is shrinking fast as a share of both our trade and the global marketplace and preventing us from striking new deals with the likes of Canada etc
Or do you propose we cut the chains and seek our own way with the over three quarters and fast growing rest of the world?
Not to forget if we chose to join the EFTA then we could easily sort that out within two years and the trade agreement with the EU will be already signed and sorted, we just need to sort our membership arrangements out which can easily be completed in that time frame.
2004 26.24%
2005 25.35%
2006 24.94%
2007 25.60%
2008 25.87%
2009 24.70%
2010 22.29%
2011 21.74%
2012 19.85%
2013 20.29%
2014 20.16%
An excellent analysis, and one that is, if anything, too conservative in its conclusion.
"Africa’s population is booming. By 2100, it will be home to 4.4 billion people - four times its current population."
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/Africa-in-100-years/index.html
And I thought in the long term 2-2.5% productivity growth was traditionally possible thanks to technological improvements etc - and I don't see any reason for that to change. The EU is shrinking precisely because it is not achieving that rate of long term growth while I believe America (and over the long term the UK) is.
I'm far more concerned with the remaining (and faster growing) 80% of the world. I feel sorry for little Europeaners that only care about 1/5th and shrinking of the world.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
How would that work then? Merkel goes to BMW and says "I am going to jack up the price of the cars you sell to the UK, but you won't see a penny of it"
Do BMW say
(a) OK fine no problem
(b) No you're bl00dy not because we will lose sales and you will lose tax and we will have to make people redundant. As will our myriad suppliers.
Surely (b)...? Tariffs are self-defeating and net harmful, I thought everyone knew that by now
Scrapping the CAP would do far more benefit to Africa than any Band Aid style fundraiser ever has.
One of the reasons why I will let my membership lapse in May. When and if it gets it's act together I may consider rejoining, only may, mind.
I did my best to summarise the argument for Leave in simple, yet colourful terms. Simply and Exaggerate as per The Economist guidance.
That's at the very top of achieved levels even for faster-growing emerging markets. Robert is quite right that for more advanced economies, even 1% pa is quite fast. Something like 0.4-0.8 pa is the more normal range
OTOH then migration of wealthier, more educated professionals is less of an issue than unskilled, penniless migration.
That is well outside of the range of 0.4 - 0.8 pa.
That would never, never happen. Fine. Sort it out yourselves.
Use Oxford University Arts Mathematics, as displayed in the Guardian.
The whole number set consists of "1" .. "2" .. "3" .. "lots".
Then if the bankers are spanked for a few more billions, or more capital, or whatever, it still counts as "lots", so you can keep making the same complaints because it still looks the same.
See also Green Housing Policy and Corbynomics, Zoe Williams etc.
Not that it's an either/or.
If JLR is anything to go by, the potential is promising.
The number you quote is for GDP per head, my numbers are for total or multi-factor productivity. For which the average pace in the US since 1973 has been less than 1% per year.
Justin Welby has just told people like you to take a hike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Averages of those 7 polls: Remain 40.7%, Leave 40.1%.