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.
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.
You see, that's not a very good answer. My world view is that there are huge opportunities out there and that the EU is not preventing us from taking them. Our lack of competitiveness in too many areas is the real issue. Productivity levels in the UK, for example, are abysmal. That is not the EU's fault. That is entirely of our own making.
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.
If you want zero risk you'd just stick your money in a bank account. Carefully judged risks are the way forward.
If you want zero risk you'd just stick your money in a bank account. Carefully judged risks are the way forward.
That argument would be more persuasive if the Leave side addressed the risks, rather than denying them outright or belittlling them, and in many cases impugning the integrity of the independent bodies and experts who point them out.
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.
Rubbish. VW is just the tip of the iceberg with European companies. They cheated to meet US emissions standards, do you not think JLR lost business because of that, BMW and Mercedes are running massive damage control operations trying to assure everyone that, yes please believe it was just VW, please don't look at us. Our problem is that we don't play dirty. Look at the dodgy fighter jet sales to India by Dassault and our dodgy fighter jet sales to Saudi Arabia, which country opened an investigation into possible corruption and bribery, not France that's for sure. Which nations completely ignore state aid rules about their energy markets and rail companies? Not Britain.
We play by the rules and have been continually f***** by the countries who don't.
You see, that's not a very good answer. My world view is that there are huge opportunities out there and that the EU is not preventing us from taking them. Our lack of competitiveness in too many areas is the real issue. Productivity levels in the UK, for example, are abysmal. That is not the EU's fault. That is entirely of our own making.
Productivity levels are low because we have low unemployment and a low wage structure. Companies (and the government) have no incentive to train staff and increase productivity at the moment with a pool of cheap labour available to them. Drive up wages and productivity will rise automatically as companies try to get more out of less.
As always, SO, you are taking the most extreme negative view of the UK. It is an affliction of the left that has begun to infect the right as well with this referendum.
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.
Rubbish. VW is just the tip of the iceberg with European companies. They cheated to meet US emissions standards, do you not think JLR lost business because of that, BMW and Mercedes are running massive damage control operations trying to assure everyone that, yes please believe it was just VW, please don't look at us. Our problem is that we don't play dirty. Look at the dodgy fighter jet sales to India by Dassault and our dodgy fighter jet sales to Saudi Arabia, which country opened an investigation into possible corruption and bribery, not France that's for sure. Which nations completely ignore state aid rules about their energy markets and rail companies? Not Britain.
We play by the rules and have been continually f***** by the countries who don't.
I'm not sure an 'our companies aren't corrupt enough' argument is entirely satisfactory, but if I did I might point to BAe, GSK, Rolls Royce, Standard Chartered, HSBC, BP, Royal Mail, and many others, as evidence on the other side.
The reason I'm not convinced leaving the EU is a good idea is because many of the things I don't like that are often cited as arguments for Brexit, such as political correctness, petty-minded bureaucracy, applying rules in an overly officious way, and so on, are far worse in Anglo-Saxon countries these days than they are in places like Italy, Spain, Portugal where they have a more relaxed and civilised attitude to those issues. If you want to experience PC, pettiness, officiousness, etc. the best place to chance upon it is in London, not Brussels, Berlin or Rome. So I'm still undecided.
Massive Norwegian sovereign wealth fund doesn't buy PM's shroud waving
'Yngve Slyngstad, chief executive of Norway’s £590billion state-owned investment fund, dismissed claims by Number Ten and the In campaign that quitting the Brussels club would pose a significant risk to investment.
‘We will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there no matter what happens,’ he said. ‘All changes entail some risk but we would not categorize it as a significant risk.’'
You see, that's not a very good answer. My world view is that there are huge opportunities out there and that the EU is not preventing us from taking them. Our lack of competitiveness in too many areas is the real issue. Productivity levels in the UK, for example, are abysmal. That is not the EU's fault. That is entirely of our own making.
Productivity levels are low because we have low unemployment and a low wage structure. Companies (and the government) have no incentive to train staff and increase productivity at the moment with a pool of cheap labour available to them. Drive up wages and productivity will rise automatically as companies try to get more out of less.
As always, SO, you are taking the most extreme negative view of the UK. It is an affliction of the left that has begun to infect the right as well with this referendum.
It's just a fact that our productivity levels are lower than they are elsewhere in Europe. Historically, that has been the case. That's not a left/right issue it's just a matter of fact. I believe the UK can thrive and prosper by being part of the EU and also by making the most of the opportunities that are out there in the rest of the world. You don't. It's you who has the negative view, not me.
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.
If you want zero risk you'd just stick your money in a bank account. Carefully judged risks are the way forward.
I know. There is nothing carefully judged about leaving the EU. It's whistling in the wind.
Chuka Umunna, who I previously liked, claims Canada deal does not cover services. The EU's own page on the thing states outright that it will "open-up services market"
Comments
Well that's definitely the key to success in business, isn't it? Avoid all risks. Really...
We play by the rules and have been continually f***** by the countries who don't.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
As always, SO, you are taking the most extreme negative view of the UK. It is an affliction of the left that has begun to infect the right as well with this referendum.
'Yngve Slyngstad, chief executive of Norway’s £590billion state-owned investment fund, dismissed claims by Number Ten and the In campaign that quitting the Brussels club would pose a significant risk to investment.
‘We will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there no matter what happens,’ he said. ‘All changes entail some risk but we would not categorize it as a significant risk.’'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486917/We-ll-invest-UK-quit-EU-says-super-rich-Norway.html#ixzz42bSmSGY4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/708219554187616256
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/index_en.htm
I've seen other folk claim it doesn't cover financial services. Chapter 13 is titled "financial services".
Do leading Remain lights not bother to learn basic facts before speaking to media or are they just lying through their teeth??