'The GOP candidates for president had a boring debate last night. My one-word summary is “capitulation.” Based on the energy on stage, it seems they stopped fighting. That means Trump can stroll to the nomination, assuming Florida goes as expected.
Trump’s only objective at the debate was to avoid looking out of control. He said in advance that he could do so easily unless the other candidates attacked him. And then his opponents did not attack him. That’s acceptance of the final result. Capitulation.
The other possibility is that Florida and Ohio are already rigged. That would be the other reason for not fighting. We’ll find out next week.
The thing to watch in coming months is the degree to which Muslim immigration becomes connected to rape in the minds of the public, based on reports from Europe and from ISIS territories. Trump is taking the anti-rape position at the expense of religious tolerance. That is a landslide-winning position against an opponent he has already labelled an “enabler.”
The hopes of the anti-Trumpers rest on the fact that nearly two-thirds of the public have a negative impression of Trump. In normal times, that would be predictive of the final result. But by November, Trump will turn this election into a referendum on protecting the health and safety of women. And he will be running against the only living human with lower approval than him (by then).
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
The killer argument is that we could before the EU ever existed.
When I worked in Spain in the late 80s I needed a visa. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
Pah
call yourself a marketing man ?
You couldn't segment an orange let alone a market.
My mate Roger - Soviet advertising for the masses :-)
If you're just looking for a jingle I'll need more time.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
The killer argument is that we could before the EU ever existed.
When I worked in Spain in the late 80s I needed a visa. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
The killer argument is that we could before the EU ever existed.
When I worked in Spain in the late 80s I needed a visa. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
Pah
call yourself a marketing man ?
You couldn't segment an orange let alone a market.
My mate Roger - Soviet advertising for the masses :-)
If you're just looking for a jingle I'll need more time.
What rhymes with EU?
It;s pronounced Ewwww
as in Ewww - Tony Blair does it five ti9mes a night
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
The killer argument is that we could before the EU ever existed.
When I worked in Spain in the late 80s I needed a visa. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
Poor example. Until 1975 if you were a mother and wanted to take your son out of Spain for any reason you had to have written permission of the father. Some countries take a while to stop being basket cases.
Besides in the late 80s Spain had already joined the EU
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Taking seven years to get a better deal is. Canada doesn't have to apply European laws it doesn't want.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
No side currently has a killer argument.
Nor are they likely to get one.
The killer argument is that any of us can go and live in any one of 27 civilized countries with civilized standards as easily as we could in Scotland or Wales. This might not be relevant to oldies but it's very much in the mind of the young.
The killer argument wont be made by the old and the young wont be forgiving if we deny them these opportunities
The killer argument is that we could before the EU ever existed.
When I worked in Spain in the late 80s I needed a visa. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
Poor example. Until 1975 if you were a mother and wanted to take your son out of Spain for any reason you had to have written permission of the father. Some countries take a while to stop being basket cases.
Besides in the late 80s Spain had already joined the EU
During the transition the visa regime stayed in place.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
I don't really see the problem, it is not in our nature to be spiteful and I think we should allow the EU to continue to trade freely with us, after all 5m EU jobs depend on their trade with us.
But Boris is not advocating that. As I've said a few times, the EEA/EFTA option is not scary. The Canada option is far worse. Having the probable PM if Leave wins advocating it is a bit of a worry, to say the least!
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
yes however since any tariffs are centred on existing WTO deals it;s not as if the world is going to come to a stop. And what you lose on one side you'll pick up somewhere else. The car tariffs seen here were minimal, someone buying a Range Rover isn't even going to notice it.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
I don't really see the problem, it is not in our nature to be spiteful and I think we should allow the EU to continue to trade freely with us, after all 5m EU jobs depend on their trade with us.
Dream on. Oh, I forgot, BMW would close down if there was a tariff barrier to export cars to the UK. With our 9 month wait, they could sell cars here even if there was a 10% tariff.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
I don't really see the problem, it is not in our nature to be spiteful and I think we should allow the EU to continue to trade freely with us, after all 5m EU jobs depend on their trade with us.
Dream on. Oh, I forgot, BMW would close down if there was a tariff barrier to export cars to the UK. With our 9 month wait, they could sell cars here even if there was a 10% tariff.
The UK is BMWs most profitable market, I suspect they might care a bit.
@derekrootboy: John McDonnell has surrendered to the capitalist parasites. He is now nothing more than a #Blairite. What the hell is he doing? #c4news
Being pragmatic ?
Reading McDonnell's thoughts on balancing budgets and fiscal rules in the Guardian this morning I am sure I could hear the distant cry of "BETRAYAL!!!" through the windows.
But Boris is not advocating that. As I've said a few times, the EEA/EFTA option is not scary. The Canada option is far worse. Having the probable PM if Leave wins advocating it is a bit of a worry, to say the least!
The thing is Remain supporters keep saying its far worse without any arguments substantiating that. Whereas Leave can point to Canada deal and say you avoid 98% of EU tariffs, it covers services and you can also sign new trade deals with the remaining 80% of world economy. And you can control immigration to boot.
London was leading financial centre in the world long before the EU financial passport even existed. Most of its business is with non-EU countries, and non-EU is growing fastest.
Sterling trading at mid-January levels against the dollar. So much for it hysteria being peddled just a week or two ago.
The CCHQ shills were only following orders... They have now moved onto arguing that it was not reckless of Cameron to offer a referendum despite him implying that the UK will become a third world country should it leave the EU.
Reading McDonnell's thoughts on balancing budgets and fiscal rules in the Guardian this morning I am sure I could hear the distant cry of "BETRAYAL!!!" through the windows.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Remainers are the real Little Englanders. We're too wee, too poor, too stupid, eek. So wet.
The real problem Remain have with Canada option coming to forefront is that it seems such a good model for the UK. Canada is seen as an economy of similar status to ours, a well-run economically sucessful place, and with a political and societal culture like us. Its easy for Remain to mock little European countries that people know little about, but not Canada.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Terms like "no guarantee" are such politicians language. "Even though you don't like what we have in fridge you shouldn't go to shops to buy something better as its effort to get there and theres no guarantee you won't get hit by a car on the way."
"...what is difficult is agreeing to change trading arrangement, not agreeing to have trading arrangements. The UK already has trading arrangements with the EU and non-EU countries. Those might well be slow to change. "
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Remainers are the real Little Englanders. We're too wee, too poor, too stupid, eek. So wet.
I believe we can trade across the world now and maximise the potential of the single market in Europe. You don't.
Sterling trading at mid-January levels against the dollar. So much for it hysteria being peddled just a week or two ago.
The CCHQ shills were only following orders... They have now moved onto arguing that it was not reckless of Cameron to offer a referendum despite him implying that the UK will become a third world country should it leave the EU.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Remainers are the real Little Englanders. We're too wee, too poor, too stupid, eek. So wet.
I believe we can trade across the world now and maximise the potential of the single market in Europe. You don't.
How ? We haven't even got a european single market now
You laugh at 7 years and Canada yet we were meant to have a single market 24 years ago and that;s with people who are meant to be on our side.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Terms like "no guarantee" are such politicians language. "Even though you don't like what we have in fridge you shouldn't go to shops to buy something better as its effort to get there and theres no guarantee you won't get hit by a car on the way."
We have guaranteed access to a single market now. I am perplexed why people want to give that up in favour of less access with no level of certainty we will get ameliorating deals with other trading partners. Just saying it'll all be fine is not good enough for me, I admit.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Ahem (EFTA, Richard, not EEA).
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
Aren't Leave in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they moan that the EU is reluctant to make trade deals (China and India are usually cited) and takes its time when it does so (eight years being the rough average) . On the other hand they think a fast-track treaty with the EU (likely to remain our main trading partners for the foreseeable future) is the way forward for the UK post Brexit.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Remainers are the real Little Englanders. We're too wee, too poor, too stupid, eek. So wet.
I believe we can trade across the world now and maximise the potential of the single market in Europe. You don't.
How ? We haven't even got a european single market now
You laugh at 7 years and Canada yet we were meant to have a single market 24 years ago and that;s with people who are meant to be on our side.
We are all competing with each other. I just don't see what we gain by voluntarily teducing our access to a single market of over 500 million people.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
The UK is a bigger economy than India. You Remainers do like to talk down Britain.
Aren't Leave in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they moan that the EU is reluctant to make trade deals (China and India are usually cited) and takes its time when it does so (eight years being the rough average) . On the other hand they think a fast-track treaty with the EU (likely to remain our main trading partners for the foreseeable future) is the way forward for the UK post Brexit.
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris bMost will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Remainers are the real Little Englanders. We're too wee, too poor, too stupid, eek. So wet.
I believe we can trade across the world now and maximise the potential of the single market in Europe. You don't.
How ? We haven't even got a european single market now
You laugh at 7 years and Canada yet we were meant to have a single market 24 years ago and that;s with people who are meant to be on our side.
We are all competing with each other. I just don't see what we gain by voluntarily teducing our access to a single market of over 500 million people.
timing and customisation,
you can do more deals quicker with more people and the number of contentious issues is reduced as we are negotiating as country not a continent.
It's easier to organise a meal than a banquet and you can order what suits you.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Ahem (EFTA, Richard, not EEA).
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
Thanks Robert. Of course EFTA. In my defense I am ill.
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Ahem (EFTA, Richard, not EEA).
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
Thanks Robert. Of course EFTA. In my defense I am ill.
Perhaps we should become a province of Canada. We'd get access to the EU as well as being part of NAFTA. And we'd still have our beloved Queen as head of state.
Back in the real world, negotiating with India on trade, they barely have a free market within their own country It's not the future I'm afraid, just cos it's in the Commonwealth - most countries don't want free trade with competitors because it hurts powerful domestic lobby groups and large employers, as per the Trump/Sanders message - and the UK is a major world economy, not a small, niche exporter like New Zealand, so trade is a threat to domestic lobbyists in the USA and elsewhere
Aren't Leave in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they moan that the EU is reluctant to make trade deals (China and India are usually cited) and takes its time when it does so (eight years being the rough average) . On the other hand they think a fast-track treaty with the EU (likely to remain our main trading partners for the foreseeable future) is the way forward for the UK post Brexit.
The trade deal has been negotiated over the last forty odd years. It is already in place.
Why would the europeans, who sell us £219bn worth of product, making £61bn profit and employ five million people as a consequence, want to disrupt it?
Very interesting that Boris has come out for a Canadian style deal that commenced negotiations in 2009 and is still not in place, 7 years later. The problem for leave is that David Cameron pounced on Boris's choice saying, as he does straight into the camera, '7 years of uncertainty' and not as good a deal as we have now. It strikes me that Boris by coming out for a Canadian deal has compromised anything else as he is such a high profile campaigner. What happens when others in leave suggest EEA OR EFTA or anything else as they will look chaotic as Boris wants the Canada deal.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Terms like "no guarantee" are such politicians language. "Even though you don't like what we have in fridge you shouldn't go to shops to buy something better as its effort to get there and theres no guarantee you won't get hit by a car on the way."
Aren't Leave in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they moan that the EU is reluctant to make trade deals (China and India are usually cited) and takes its time when it does so (eight years being the rough average) . On the other hand they think a fast-track treaty with the EU (likely to remain our main trading partners for the foreseeable future) is the way forward for the UK post Brexit.
The trade deal has been negotiated over the last forty odd years. It is already in place.
Why would the europeans, who sell us £219bn worth of product, making £61bn profit and employ five million people as a consequence, want to disrupt it?
I've yet to hear a persuasive explanation.
The point is more that leaving won't do any good The second hand is correct. The first hand is not correct - India is not going to open doors to trade - dare I say especially if some tonedeaf Leaver PM argues on the basis of shared heritage, the glorious Empire, etc
Aren't Leave in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand they moan that the EU is reluctant to make trade deals (China and India are usually cited) and takes its time when it does so (eight years being the rough average) . On the other hand they think a fast-track treaty with the EU (likely to remain our main trading partners for the foreseeable future) is the way forward for the UK post Brexit.
If it does take eight years then what happens during that period?
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
Of course it is independent He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
They wouldn't want to disrupt it, Chestnut. They would merely point out that there is a solution already in place: membership of the EEA. Remember you are dealing with 27 countries, some of which have only a small amount of trade with the UK, and many whose over-riding concern will be to safeguard the interests of their citizens working here. I'd counter challenge: why would they suddenly agree to our demands when they barely gave an inch during Cameron's negotiations?
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
Whereas inside the EU we get what they decide to give us which is then watered down by what the rest of the EU want so we get very little.
Access to a market of 500 million is worth serious compromise to achieve. Access to a market of 70 million less so. And within the EU (or EEA) we retain the freedom of movement we have now.
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
Of course it is independent He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
Of course he is not independent. This is not about political parties it is about ones underlying views on a specific issue. Having been a leading member of an organisation that is in favour of the UK being part of complete political union within the EU clearly undermines the idea that he will view the specific issue of UK membership of the EU objectively.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Ahem (EFTA, Richard, not EEA).
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
Thanks Robert. Of course EFTA. In my defense I am ill.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
Whereas inside the EU we get what they decide to give us which is then watered down by what the rest of the EU want so we get very little.
Access to a market of 500 million is worth serious compromise to achieve. Access to a market of 70 million less so. And within the EU (or EEA) we retain the freedom of movement we have now.
As you know I prefer the EEA option but when ranked I would certainly put them as
1. EEA/EFTA 2. Canada Option 3. (By a very long way) EU
Basically any option that sees us outside the EU is better than any option staying in.
nigel4england...quite a few of my friends managed to do it as well..even bought properties..and none of them were crooks..none of them seemed to have any difficulty obtaining permission.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
Whereas inside the EU we get what they decide to give us which is then watered down by what the rest of the EU want so we get very little.
Access to a market of 500 million is worth serious compromise to achieve. Access to a market of 70 million less so. And within the EU (or EEA) we retain the freedom of movement we have now.
As you know I prefer the EEA option but when ranked I would certainly put them as
1. EEA/EFTA 2. Canada Option 3. (By a very long way) EU
Basically any option that sees us outside the EU is better than any option staying in.
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
Of course it is independent He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
Rubio on TV today urging his supporters in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
If Kasich asks his voters in Florida to vote for Rubio then the calculation would be that Trump arrives at the convention with fewer than 1237 delegates, and after the first vote the negotiating can begin and Trump might be stopped.
It's desperate stuff and if the brokered convention is perceived as a fix then it could shatter the Republican party.
It would also hand the White House to the democrats.
The reaction from Cameron and Remain campaign is notable in how weak it is. Even if you accept it at face value, taking a few years to get something done isn't a reason for not doing it if its the right thing. Now Remain would say its not the right thing either, but they aren't making any persuasive arguments to that end. Things like "1% of tariffs still exist" or "a minority of companies would still have to abide by some regulation" sound so lame. Most will hear that and think "if thats the worse that can be said about it, can't be that bad... unlike EU."
Taking seven years to get a deal that isn't as good as the one we have now doesn't look like a very productive use of time.
Actually I think that;s a bit silly.
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
Yes, most countries are not in Europe. We are and we are currently part of a single market. Advocating a seven year wait to negotiate a deal that would reduce that access makes no sense to me. Of course we'd get along. But surely we want more than that.
How about dealing with the 80% of the globe by GDP that is outside of the EU, which the EU prevents us from doing right now?
We can trade anywhere now. Leaving the EU is no guarantee we will get better deals than we have now or that the EU could negotiate.
Except that right now membership of the EU prevents us getting those trade deals unless the rest of the EU wants it. It prevents us arranging our own terms for trade deals.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
Ahem (EFTA, Richard, not EEA).
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
Thanks Robert. Of course EFTA. In my defense I am ill.
Whisky.
Unfortunately it is basically exhaustion and the associated illness that comes with that. What I really need is to take a couple of months off but in the current climate that is not an option.
We won't get our own terms negotiating with the US, China, India etc. We will get what they decide to give us when they decide to give it to us.
Whereas inside the EU we get what they decide to give us which is then watered down by what the rest of the EU want so we get very little.
Access to a market of 500 million is worth serious compromise to achieve. Access to a market of 70 million less so. And within the EU (or EEA) we retain the freedom of movement we have now.
As you know I prefer the EEA option but when ranked I would certainly put them as
1. EEA/EFTA 2. Canada Option 3. (By a very long way) EU
Basically any option that sees us outside the EU is better than any option staying in.
Rubio on TV today urging his supporters in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
If Kasich asks his voters in Florida to vote for Rubio then the calculation would be that Trump arrives at the convention with fewer than 1237 delegates, and after the first vote the negotiating can begin and Trump might be stopped.
It's desperate stuff and if the brokered convention is perceived as a fix then it could shatter the Republican party.
It would also hand the White House to the democrats.
Rubio doesn't have any supporters in Ohio but his pathetic intervention should stimulate Trump enthusiasts to vote.
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
Of course it is independent He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
Of course he is not independent. This is not about political parties it is about ones underlying views on a specific issue. Having been a leading member of an organisation that is in favour of the UK being part of complete political union within the EU clearly undermines the idea that he will view the specific issue of UK membership of the EU objectively.
No. First, almost by definition, nobody can view a topic objectively, we're all subjects viewing an object => subjectivity is universal Second, it is likely that he thought about the issue of a federal EU before deciding to join a federal EU lobby group, so the ordering of the accusation is wrong
They wouldn't want to disrupt it, Chestnut. They would merely point out that there is a solution already in place: membership of the EEA. Remember you are dealing with 27 countries, some of which have only a small amount of trade with the UK, and many whose over-riding concern will be to safeguard the interests of their citizens working here. I'd counter challenge: why would they suddenly agree to our demands when they barely gave an inch during Cameron's negotiations?
We are not asking for anything we don't already have where trade is concerned, so there is no demand.
Some countries may not have significant direct links to us, but they are part of the Franco-Italian-German supply chain and these big nations have plenty riding on this.
The evidence of the EZ crisis is that the big players will expect the small to fall into line if there is enough riding on it.
Ha. I do love it when BSE so comprehensively shoot themselves in the foot.
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
Of course it is independent He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
Of course he is not independent. This is not about political parties it is about ones underlying views on a specific issue. Having been a leading member of an organisation that is in favour of the UK being part of complete political union within the EU clearly undermines the idea that he will view the specific issue of UK membership of the EU objectively.
No. First, almost by definition, nobody can view a topic objectively, we're all subjects viewing an object => subjectivity is universal Second, it is likely that he thought about the issue of a federal EU before deciding to join a federal EU lobby group, so the ordering of the accusation is wrong
But his membership and support for such a group then informs subsequent decisions and views. If an economist who was also the Chairman of a local Tory association wrote an article praising George Osborne's handling if the economy no one would consider him an independent voice.
Begg is a senior member of an organisation that wants to see the UK subsumed into a Federal EU. As such he us in no way independent on this issue.
Chestnut, if 10% of exports were at risk, it would amount to half of one percent of their total and barely register. We would lose 4-5% of our exports and companies would start laying off workers. Also, I suspect we don't have the range of industries which the rest of the EU possesses. Thus, they are more likely to replace what we supplied; whereas we would still need to import.
Chestnut, if 10% of exports were at risk, it would amount to half of one percent of their total and barely register. We would lose 4-5% of our exports and companies would start laying off workers. Also, I suspect we don't have the range of industries which the rest of the EU possesses. Thus, they are more likely to replace what we supplied; whereas we would still need to import.
Impacts must be measured by £ or € by nation state to understand the levers with each nation. The % isn't legal tender anywhere.
Additionally, the EU (exUK) is not a single nation. It is 27 different nations, with 27 leaders, 27 sets of consequences etc. Establish the levers with each on an individual basis.
Finally, as a net importer a change makes us attractive to alternative suppliers and provides the opportunity to grow domestic production. As net exporters, they just lose customers.
Comments
Trump 48 .. Cruz 28 .. Kasich 12 .. Rubio 8
Clinton 58 .. Sanders 34
What rhymes with EU?
The best post of the week for me was the one on who doesn't have a current trading agreement with the EU ( rcs1000 I think ) which was just about every major economy from USA to China.
Not having a EU deal is the norm not the exception and still everybody seems to get along.
@derekrootboy: John McDonnell has surrendered to the capitalist parasites. He is now nothing more than a #Blairite. What the hell is he doing? #c4news
as in Ewww - Tony Blair does it five ti9mes a night
Besides in the late 80s Spain had already joined the EU
GOP
Trump: 36
Cruz: 29
Rubio: 9
Kasich: 8
Dems
Clinton 47
Sanders 40
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-clinton-have-slight-poll-leads-ahead-of-tuesday-missouri/article_72706d3d-8bbd-5873-8c7e-e6543072b341.html
So it begins for the Left, yet again...
Neither is truly 'free movement', just different but allowing the same result.
@paulmasonnews: For the dimwits who think McDonnell just re-announced Ed Balls' fiscal rule https://t.co/2hyFfTQEUI
@hopisen: Are they Dimwits? @paulmasonnews https://t.co/edea2nTXnu
How much would tariffs generate for the exchequer in import duties?
That's a GREAT model...
http://www.andrewlilico.com/2016/03/11/when-no-new-trade-deal-is-agreed-things-stay-as-they-were-before/
You laugh at 7 years and Canada yet we were meant to have a single market 24 years ago and that;s with people who are meant to be on our side.
As an aside the EEA has had a trade deal with Canada since 2009. If we had been in the EEA we would have had that deal for the last 7 years - whilst the EU has still been talking about it.
EFTA also has a trade deal with the GCC that the EU doesn't have.
http://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/watch/trump-ads-attack-kasich-over-lehman-brothers-ties-and-budget/vp-AAgFqzK
Interesting article
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/Africa-in-100-years/index.html
To support their first claim of an error they quote Professor Iain Begg of the LSE as an Independent Expert. That would be the Professor Iain Begg who is a council member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal EU?
Not exactly independent then.
It's not the future I'm afraid, just cos it's in the Commonwealth -
most countries don't want free trade with competitors because it hurts powerful domestic lobby groups and large employers, as per the Trump/Sanders message -
and the UK is a major world economy, not a small, niche exporter like New Zealand, so trade is a threat to domestic lobbyists in the USA and elsewhere
Why would the europeans, who sell us £219bn worth of product, making £61bn profit and employ five million people as a consequence, want to disrupt it?
I've yet to hear a persuasive explanation.
The second hand is correct. The first hand is not correct - India is not going to open doors to trade - dare I say especially if some tonedeaf Leaver PM argues on the basis of shared heritage, the glorious Empire, etc
He is not obviously dependent on a political party or lobby group for employment. Rather, he appears to be trustee of a group which he agrees with
HMRC currently pull in over £3bn in import duties.
It must pay for something.
https://twitter.com/search?q=place:0570f015c264cbd9
Remember you are dealing with 27 countries, some of which have only a small amount of trade with the UK, and many whose over-riding concern will be to safeguard the interests of their citizens working here.
I'd counter challenge: why would they suddenly agree to our demands when they barely gave an inch during Cameron's negotiations?
1. EEA/EFTA
2. Canada Option
3. (By a very long way) EU
Basically any option that sees us outside the EU is better than any option staying in.
If Kasich asks his voters in Florida to vote for Rubio then the calculation would be that Trump arrives at the convention with fewer than 1237 delegates, and after the first vote the negotiating can begin and Trump might be stopped.
It's desperate stuff and if the brokered convention is perceived as a fix then it could shatter the Republican party.
It would also hand the White House to the democrats.
First, almost by definition, nobody can view a topic objectively, we're all subjects viewing an object => subjectivity is universal
Second, it is likely that he thought about the issue of a federal EU before deciding to join a federal EU lobby group, so the ordering of the accusation is wrong
Some countries may not have significant direct links to us, but they are part of the Franco-Italian-German supply chain and these big nations have plenty riding on this.
The evidence of the EZ crisis is that the big players will expect the small to fall into line if there is enough riding on it.
new thread
Begg is a senior member of an organisation that wants to see the UK subsumed into a Federal EU. As such he us in no way independent on this issue.
Also, I suspect we don't have the range of industries which the rest of the EU possesses. Thus, they are more likely to replace what we supplied; whereas we would still need to import.
Additionally, the EU (exUK) is not a single nation. It is 27 different nations, with 27 leaders, 27 sets of consequences etc. Establish the levers with each on an individual basis.
Finally, as a net importer a change makes us attractive to alternative suppliers and provides the opportunity to grow domestic production. As net exporters, they just lose customers.