When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, I will go on PB and not post about the EU, people are getting sick of having the same bloody discussion every single day.
How about a nice bit of AV chat to cleanse the palate?
Or an Ed 'judge led enquiry' Milliband is crap thread. God, I so miss those!!!
Mr. S, these posting restrictions are wrong at a time when the EU referendum debate is ongoing. Mr. Eagles has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. I call on both sides to put aside the rhetoric, and get around the negotiating table.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
What complete tosh. In this case, every single politician involved in any of the campaigns (with the possible exception of one fair-haired chap) is doing what they think is best for the country. In some cases, they are doing so at a cost to their personal careers. It is both unpleasant and completely wrong-headed to impugn the motives of either siide in this debate.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
Free trade is not free movement. Canada has a free trade agreement with the EU. The City would hate to have what Canada has. And it would also make it much harder for many UK businesses that currently work inside the single market. If we want to leave the EU and retain the access we enjoy right now the only option is EFTA/EEA. And that means free movement of people.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
What complete tosh. In this case, every single politician involved in any of the campaigns (with the possible exception of one fair-haired chap) is doing what they think is best for the country. In some cases, they are doing so at a cost to their personal careers. It is both unpleasant and completely wrong-headed to impugn the motives of either siide in this debate.
Indeed it is unpleasant to launch into a personal attack based on a complete misunderstanding of my post. An apology would be appreciated.
My argument was that they are doing their best to win the vote for their side - it is their individual interests to be in the winning side - even though the methods both sides are using are likely to lead to a sub-optimal outcome for the country regardless of the result.
We've end up in a non-cooperation based prisoner's dilemma
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
Fear works, as Roger points out. And it is working. But 'Leave', if it had the intelligence, would be using negative campaigning with much more credibility than the Remain side. If only it would use the evidence that the EU itself supplies, it would have a chance.
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
(snip)
The weird thing is that for me if Cameron had come back with a more distant "associate membership" within the EU permanently "downgrading" British status as a non Euro country I would have been absolutely delighted and cheerfully voted for it. As he didn't I want EEA membership instead which I see as very similar.
They really aren't similar at all, because of the ECJ, CAP/CFP, Justice and Home affairs, unified foreign policy, and especially Customs Union to name but a few. Environmental and energy policy is another big one that will loom large in years to come.
Associate membership was what the PM hoped to sell as if it gave freedom, but the timetable was pushed back due to multiple crises. It's why he has gone to polls early, because the treaty is now on permanent hold so there is no deal to wait for. But it's a straight jacket, not a glimpse of freedom.
Strangely though, it's what Dan Hannan previously said he had hoped for, and other Tories too, which is why I thought the PM would go long to Q4 2017 in the hope that the treaty draft could be put on the table. The Migrant Crisis finished that, along with the French/German election timetable.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
Ah another cheap shot, you do so excel at them, is it part of the training, or just a natural talent.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
What complete tosh. In this case, every single politician involved in any of the campaigns (with the possible exception of one fair-haired chap) is doing what they think is best for the country. In some cases, they are doing so at a cost to their personal careers. It is both unpleasant and completely wrong-headed to impugn the motives of either siide in this debate.
You're deluded if you think that none of those involved have more interest in their legacy or personal ambition, over those of the country. And that includes leading Remainians.
When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, I will go on PB and not post about the EU, people are getting sick of having the same bloody discussion every single day.
How about a nice bit of AV chat to cleanse the palate?
Or an Ed 'judge led enquiry' Milliband is crap thread. God, I so miss those!!!
The views of £500k pa Islington lawyers who talk about voting Green and have second Hungarian/Irish homes with heated swimming pools [and once had them as an avatar] are a Venn diagram worthy of an electron microscope.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
Ah another cheap shot, you do so excel at them, is it part of the training, or just a natural talent.
Mr. S, these posting restrictions are wrong at a time when the EU referendum debate is ongoing. Mr. Eagles has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. I call on both sides to put aside the rhetoric, and get around the negotiating table.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
That's nonsense - you forgot the biggest group of all (of which I'm an example): Want the trading advantages of the Single Market, dislike a lot of the other features of the EU, but are unsure about whether leaving would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's probably 80% of the party, of whom some are coming down on the Leave side, and some on the Remain side.
If the Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative, I'd have been on the Leave side. But they haven't, so I'm on the Remain side. Zero to do with loyalty.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
What complete tosh. In this case, every single politician involved in any of the campaigns (with the possible exception of one fair-haired chap) is doing what they think is best for the country. In some cases, they are doing so at a cost to their personal careers. It is both unpleasant and completely wrong-headed to impugn the motives of either siide in this debate.
Would this be the same Mr Nabavi that starts so many posts with some variation on the theme of "look what those complete fecking morons in Leave are doing now"... or have I confused you with Mr Meeks ?
Mr. S, these posting restrictions are wrong at a time when the EU referendum debate is ongoing. Mr. Eagles has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. I call on both sides to put aside the rhetoric, and get around the negotiating table.
In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.
The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.
Sorry SO. I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were implying that EEA membership would mean worse trade deals.
Reading what you wrote again I agree with you. Bit since immigration is not a driving factor for me it is not something that puts me off the EEA route.
Mr. S, either is acceptable in terms of both the noun (The Chilcott Inquiry has been delayed again) or the verb (I enquired about whether or not his mother was also his aunt).
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
If the Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative, I'd have been on the Leave side. But they haven't, so I'm on the Remain side. Zero to do with loyalty.
Mr. 86, they tend to use Inquiry for the formal process. I think Enquiry would also be technically correct but, like Britons tending not to use Z for words like crystallise (even though that's acceptable in UK English), it tends not to be used.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
Zero to do with loyalty.
To be fair, that's one of the better April Fool's this morning.
In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.
The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.
I think we should take back control of our borders but if we end up with EEA membership it won't bother me too much. It might be different for others.
I maintain that whatever happens with the referendum, if immigration carries on at the current levels until the next election then the Tories have a big problem.
In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.
The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.
Sorry SO. I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were implying that EEA membership would mean worse trade deals.
Reading what you wrote again I agree with you. Bit since immigration is not a driving factor for me it is not something that puts me off the EEA route.
Absolutely. You have been entirely consistent and open about this all the time you have been posting on here. I am late on this as a subject, I have to admit. It's only one I have given any serious thought to for about a month. I am a Brussels-phobe, I think it's fair to say, but on balance I like the freedoms the EU delivers, I don't think we'd get better trade deals on our own and I think a level of sovereignty pooling for open market access is an inevitable part of life for a mid-sized, advanced industrial economy like ours. So I say we are better off In :-)
The views of £500k pa Islington lawyers who talk about voting Green and have second Hungarian/Irish homes with heated swimming pools [and once had them as an avatar] are a Venn diagram worthy of an electron microscope.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it
I quite agree, although the delusion of such people that their views are representative of, well anyone really except rich metropolitan lawyers, it certainly humorous. The idea that this sort of voting group is more important, or at the very least more worthy than several million white van men and women is certainly interesting.
PRO-EU campaigners have been urged to keep Labour high flier Chuka Umunna away from the TV cameras during the referendum as he puts off voters, it has been claimed.
A senior figure involved in the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign said: “He bombs in focus groups.”
Adding that private polling shows the sharp-suited smoothy was not helping the pro-EU cause, the insider said: “let’s just say he doesn’t turn the dial the right way for us”.
Mr. 86, they tend to use Inquiry for the formal process. I think Enquiry would also be technically correct but, like Britons tending not to use Z for words like crystallise (even though that's acceptable in UK English), it tends not to be used.
My work don't like z which I find odd. People automatically assume it's American. Well, they are right, in my opinion, to use z just as they are right to say soccer.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
If the Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative, I'd have been on the Leave side. But they haven't, so I'm on the Remain side. Zero to do with loyalty.
No-one believes that
Well given there are multiple versions of Leave and the only people who can decide which one we go for is the government (regardless of what anyone claims) the only "coherent alternative" would be if Cameron had come out for a particular model of Leave. I believe that if Cameron had come out for a particular version of Leave that Nabavi would have backed that.
In which case "Leadership loyalists" and "Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative" are the exact same thing.
Indeed it is unpleasant to launch into a personal attack based on a complete misunderstanding of my post. An apology would be appreciated.
My argument was that they are doing their best to win the vote for their side - it is their individual interests to be in the winning side - even though the methods both sides are using are likely to lead to a sub-optimal outcome for the country regardless of the result.
We've end up in a non-cooperation based prisoner's dilemma
My apologies, yes, I did slightly misunderstand your point.
All the same, I don't think it's right. It's not the case that politicans are using negative arguments because it's in their individual interests to be on the winning side. For both sides, winning the referendum is absolutely crucial in the interests of the country.
In addition, you are incorrectly assuming that the negative campaigning is insincere. I don't think it is, although some of the sillier manifestations of it are due to over-enthusiasm.
In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.
The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.
Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?
17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.
The EEA/EFTA option will be seen as an attempt to stay in the EU in all but name and a betrayal of democracy. It would destroy the Conservative party, and perhaps even rejuvenenate the kipper dead parrot.
It certainly wouldn't destroy the Tory party and I doubt it would help UKIP either.
The Tory party is split fairly evenly between Leave and Remain. And of the Leave supporters there appear to be a solid majority happy with the EEA route. Even UKIP's one MP seems to accept that is the best route. Meanwhile a Leave result will strip UKIP of a significant proportion of its support - those who saw it as a tool to achieve Brexit but who are uneasy with its development as a socially conservative organisation..
The views of £500k pa Islington lawyers who talk about voting Green and have second Hungarian/Irish homes with heated swimming pools [and once had them as an avatar] are a Venn diagram worthy of an electron microscope.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it
I quite agree, although the delusion of such people that their views are representative of, well anyone really except rich metropolitan lawyers, it certainly humorous. The idea that this sort of voting group is more important, or at the very least more worthy than several million white van men and women is certainly interesting.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
Zero to do with loyalty.
To be fair, that's one of the better April Fool's this morning.
I wasn't aware that Mr N. had such a talent for deadpan humor. That incident last year where he refused to admit for months that we had actually paid all the £1.7bn cash-for-hookers to the EU until presented with incontrovertible evidence was clearly myopia, and zero to do with loyalty as well
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
What complete tosh. In this case, every single politician involved in any of the campaigns (with the possible exception of one fair-haired chap) is doing what they think is best for the country. In some cases, they are doing so at a cost to their personal careers. It is both unpleasant and completely wrong-headed to impugn the motives of either siide in this debate.
Would this be the same Mr Nabavi that starts so many posts with some variation on the theme of "look what those complete fecking morons in Leave are doing now"... or have I confused you with Mr Meeks ?
In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.
The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.
Sorry SO. I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were implying that EEA membership would mean worse trade deals.
Reading what you wrote again I agree with you. Bit since immigration is not a driving factor for me it is not something that puts me off the EEA route.
Absolutely. You have been entirely consistent and open about this all the time you have been posting on here. I am late on this as a subject, I have to admit. It's only one I have given any serious thought to for about a month. I am a Brussels-phobe, I think it's fair to say, but on balance I like the freedoms the EU delivers, I don't think we'd get better trade deals on our own and I think a level of sovereignty pooling for open market access is an inevitable part of life for a mid-sized, advanced industrial economy like ours. So I say we are better off In :-)
Thats rather too logical SO.... tough to argue against.
The views of £500k pa Islington lawyers who talk about voting Green and have second Hungarian/Irish homes with heated swimming pools [and once had them as an avatar] are a Venn diagram worthy of an electron microscope.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
Ah another cheap shot, you do so excel at them, is it part of the training, or just a natural talent.
They really aren't similar at all, because of the ECJ, CAP/CFP, Justice and Home affairs, unified foreign policy, and especially Customs Union to name but a few. Environmental and energy policy is another big one that will loom large in years to come.
- EEA membership includes signing to nearly all the EU environmental directives (there are some small exceptions on nature protection and water quality). It also includes signing up to energy policy.
- You are right about the ECJ, but the EFTA court would replace it in relation to EEA-related matters, so I'm not sure that's a particularly strong argument.
- CAP, CFP: Yes, we'd be out of those, which is a good thing and a valid advantage of the EEA route
- Unified foreign policy: Not sure what that means in practice.
- Customs Union - that is a slight disadvantage of the EEA route, as it makes exporting to the EU a little more burdensome. Not a big deal, but a negative all the same.
- Justice and Home Affairs: I think this might be somewhat illusory as an argument for leaving (and especially for the EEA route). We had an opt-out, and we signed back in to some of it. The reasons we signed back in will still apply; I expect leaving will make little difference to our wish to do so.
...But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation....
What is the coherent future that REMAIN could agree and deliver for us if we REMAIN in? With Turkey as a member within 10 years or not? EU to grow at what rate, 0%, 0.5%, 1% pa? Our payments to the EU to be what over next 10 years? The EU's social policies will be X and lead to Y levels of unemployment? The CAP will be fundamentally reformed? Of these and other issues, REMAIN can promise nothing on them as it will not be in charge of delivering them - it will be down to 28 countries and EU bureaucrats. Just as LEAVE campaigns cannot make promises as they will not be the governing party to deliver them...
The Tory party is split fairly evenly between Leave and Remain. And of the Leave supporters there appear to be a solid majority happy with the EEA route.
For most of the Conservative Leavers I know, immigration is an absolutely key argument. Why do you think there's a solid majority happy with the EEA route?
Ooooooh, not an April Fools' story. Brokered convention here we come
Donald Trump’s announcement that he no longer stands by a pledge to support the GOP has thrown his hold on South Carolina’s 50 delegates in doubt.
The Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday.
The loyalty pledge is nothing new in South Carolina, where it has been required for decades, but took on new focus in light of Trump’s public musings about a third-party run or withdrawing his support from the eventual nominee if he is stopped at a contested convention.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry).
Zero to do with loyalty.
To be fair, that's one of the better April Fool's this morning.
I wasn't aware that Mr N. had such a talent for deadpan humor. That incident last year where he refused to admit for months that we had actually paid all the £1.7bn cash-for-hookers to the EU until presented with incontrovertible evidence was clearly myopia, and zero to do with loyalty as well
Cameron and Osborne promised it would not happen. Mr Nabavi believed them. Mr Nabavi still believes what they promise, a victory of hope over experience.
The views of £500k pa Islington lawyers who talk about voting Green and have second Hungarian/Irish homes with heated swimming pools [and once had them as an avatar] are a Venn diagram worthy of an electron microscope.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
Ah another cheap shot, you do so excel at them, is it part of the training, or just a natural talent.
If you think you can do better go ahead.
Better at being patronising and paternalist... well it's a challenge, but I am sure we can rise to it with a bit of practise
@MrHarryCole: A third party has entered the fray to be the official Leave campaign: Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition has put in a bid. Not a joke.
Further to the question of whether we would go for an EEA-style deal if the result is Leave, I'm struggling to find any major support for it at all amongst the main politicians on the Leave side. Owen Paterson was arguing for it a while back, but apart from that there seems to be no support for it amongst prominent Leavers - they almost all mention migration as one of the arguments, as do the two rival Leave campaigns. Where does this idea that we'd end up applying for an EEA-style deal come from? It looks like a political non-starter to me.
I see the BBC website is apparently reporting that Vince Cable has suggested the Govt should take over Tata's pension scheme to aid any sale.
Assuming the date of April 1st is not significant here, could anybody direct me to the appropriate Govt office where I can fill in one or two forms to get this lavish State aid? I had no idea this was on offer, silly me. Or does it only apply if the transaction involved is worth squillions and has made the news, and the rest of us poor foot soldiers in this are just not worthy of such intervention?
@ScottyNational: News: SNP to extend Named Person scheme so every SNP MP gets additional help filling in their expenses forms or drafting hyperbolic tweets
They really aren't similar at all, because of the ECJ, CAP/CFP, Justice and Home affairs, unified foreign policy, and especially Customs Union to name but a few. Environmental and energy policy is another big one that will loom large in years to come.
- EEA membership includes signing to nearly all the EU environmental directives (there are some small exceptions on nature protection and water quality). It also includes signing up to energy policy.
- You are right about the ECJ, but the EFTA court would replace it in relation to EEA-related matters, so I'm not sure that's a particularly strong argument.
- CAP, CFP: Yes, we'd be out of those, which is a good thing and a valid advantage of the EEA route
- Unified foreign policy: Not sure what that means in practice.
- Customs Union - that is a slight disadvantage of the EEA route, as it makes exporting to the EU a little more burdensome. Not a big deal, but a negative all the same.
- Justice and Home Affairs: I think this might be somewhat illusory as an argument for leaving (and especially for the EEA route). We had an opt-out, and we signed back in to some of it. The reasons we signed back in will still apply; I expect leaving will make little difference to our wish to do so.
The Environmental legislation is contained in Annex XX of the EEA agreement - a lot of it is water and air quality stuff, eco labelling, and reporting, that's actually fairly good and would be retained by a sensible government even if not included. But the more localised stuff on wildlife and waterways is excluded from what I can tell - I'll have to do a little more research on the actual directives.
The other thing to consider is that EEA would only be a temporary position to get around the two year Art 50 issues. Beyond that, we would have time to restructure our relationship with the EU further. With the development of WTO non tariff barrier legislation, as a trade bloc it is actually going to become obsolete in time, leaving the political aspect as its main objective.
Further to the question of whether we would go for an EEA-style deal if the result is Leave, I'm struggling to find any major support for it at all amongst the main politicians on the Leave side. Owen Paterson was arguing for it a while back, but apart from that there seems to be no support for it amongst prominent Leavers - they almost all mention migration as one of the arguments, as do the two rival Leave campaigns. Where does this idea that we'd end up applying for an EEA-style deal come from? It looks like a political non-starter to me.
You and others for REMAIN go on and on about what will happen if LEAVE wins, yet you never write equally about all the unanswered and unanswerable questions if REMAIN wins. Q. Who will be in Govt to decide this if LEAVE or REMAIN wins? A. A new cabinet from within the Conservative party. Q. What happens if voters at GE2020 do not like the arrangements they make and laws they pass? A: They get upset and vote for alternatives.
@ScottyNational: News: SNP to extend Named Person scheme so every SNP MP gets additional help filling in their expenses forms or drafting hyperbolic tweets
I did enjoy @Jonathan and @DecrepitJohnL arguing yesterday over the crap feedback The Times new site is getting. IIRC neither are subcribers so how informed their views are is another matter.
For those of us who do http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/a-letter-from-the-editors-fdrq0p2p0 600 posts 99.9% hating it. We're all suffering from False Consciousness - and terrible narrow minded haters who can't cope with change. Or perhaps we've legitimate criticisms for a service we pay for.
Further to the question of whether we would go for an EEA-style deal if the result is Leave, I'm struggling to find any major support for it at all amongst the main politicians on the Leave side. Owen Paterson was arguing for it a while back, but apart from that there seems to be no support for it amongst prominent Leavers - they almost all mention migration as one of the arguments, as do the two rival Leave campaigns. Where does this idea that we'd end up applying for an EEA-style deal come from? It looks like a political non-starter to me.
You and others for REMAIN go on and on about what will happen if LEAVE wins, yet you never write equally about all the unanswered and unanswerable questions if REMAIN wins. Q. Who will be in Govt to decide this if LEAVE or REMAIN wins? A. A new cabinet from within the Conservative party. Q. What happens if voters at GE2020 do not like the arrangements they make and laws they pass? A: They get upset and vote for alternatives.
That's a nonsense argument. They can get upset and vote for a different alternative if we remain in the EU and things develop in a way they don't like. What's the difference between leaving the EEA and leaving the EU? We could - in theory - do either at any time.
Whether in practice we would do so is another matter; almost certainly not. Any deal we come to after the referendum is probably for a very long time. The disruption is bad enough as it is, without repeating the whole damned exercise!
Further to the question of whether we would go for an EEA-style deal if the result is Leave, I'm struggling to find any major support for it at all amongst the main politicians on the Leave side. Owen Paterson was arguing for it a while back, but apart from that there seems to be no support for it amongst prominent Leavers - they almost all mention migration as one of the arguments, as do the two rival Leave campaigns. Where does this idea that we'd end up applying for an EEA-style deal come from? It looks like a political non-starter to me.
It largely comes from the fact that the political establishment won't want to risk an economic shock, and won't want to risk going beyond the two year period in art 50. The civil service won't want to have to restore all control to the UK over every policy area in two years either, it would be too big a task to completely unravel political union and trade.
So staged exit becomes the sensible and pragmatic approach. The Civil Service are apparently already discussing this so we have been told by 'sources' -how reliable that is, well that's anyone's guess.
The Campaigns are looking to tickle the voters, they are picking arguments that they think will win. I don't think they are correct in how they are doing it, but it has little bearing on what happens afterwards from a legal perspective - the question on the ballot paper is a simple one. How the result is achieved is not the question asked.
The site moderators have stopped even bothering to respond to criticism. The complaints are piling up. Either they accept they've cocked up and do a New Coke/Classic Coke return or carry on and lose business rather than lose face.
I know what I'd do - a few days of embarrassment trumps damaging your customer base.
It largely comes from the fact that the political establishment won't want to risk an economic shock, and won't want to risk going beyond the two year period in art 50. The civil service won't want to have to restore all control to the UK over every policy area in two years either, it would be too big a task to completely unravel political union and trade.
So staged exit becomes the sensible and pragmatic approach. The Civil Service are apparently already discussing this so we have been told by 'sources' -how reliable that is, well that's anyone's guess.
The Campaigns are looking to tickle the voters, they are picking arguments that they think will win. I don't think they are correct in how they are doing it, but it has little bearing on what happens afterwards from a legal perspective - the question on the ballot paper is a simple one. How the result is achieved is not the question asked.
Well, you can have a staged exit whatever happens; there's no reason, for example, why we couldn't agree to keep freedom of movement for a period of five or ten years, if that's what both sides want. You don't have to join the EEA to do that.
It largely comes from the fact that the political establishment won't want to risk an economic shock, and won't want to risk going beyond the two year period in art 50. The civil service won't want to have to restore all control to the UK over every policy area in two years either, it would be too big a task to completely unravel political union and trade.
So staged exit becomes the sensible and pragmatic approach. The Civil Service are apparently already discussing this so we have been told by 'sources' -how reliable that is, well that's anyone's guess.
The Campaigns are looking to tickle the voters, they are picking arguments that they think will win. I don't think they are correct in how they are doing it, but it has little bearing on what happens afterwards from a legal perspective - the question on the ballot paper is a simple one. How the result is achieved is not the question asked.
Well, you can have a staged exit whatever happens; there's no reason, for example, why we couldn't agree to keep freedom of movement for a period of five or ten years, if that's what both sides want. You don't have to join the EEA to do that.
No, but if you join EFTA, then it makes sense to do so. When you open up a treaty for negotiation, every party to it wants a little victory to take away for domestic consumption. Keeping the EEA treaty whole in the first instance reduces the risk of going over the two years, and then having to rely on the Art 50 extension.
There is plenty of time to open up these issues once we are our of the EU, but the first stage is safer with this 'off the shelf' solution.
Are we getting to the point where the evidence is piling up which could cause a cabinet resignation or 2 on this TATA steel matter? Javid is in deep trouble although Osborne should be as well.
"Axel Eggert, director general of the European Steel Association, which represents the industry across the continent, told the Financial Times: ‘The UK is the ringleader in a blocking minority of member states that is preventing a European Commission proposal on the modernisation of Europe’s trade defence instruments.
A French diplomat added: ‘In reality, the UK has been opposing an overhaul of the EU’s anti-dumping system.’ In February, Business Secretary Sajid Javid told MPs that punitive tariffs ‘simply do not work’ and would ‘drive up prices’.
Richard Desmond has sold his adult TV business, including the Television X and Red Hot channels, severing his last link with the adult entertainment industry that helped the Daily Express and Daily Star owner make his fortune.
Desmond’s company, Northern & Shell, announced on Friday it had sold its adult broadcasting arm, Portland Television, in a management buyout worth less than £1m, 12 years after he sold his adult magazines.
The deal also marks Desmond’s complete exit from the UK television industry following the sale of Channel 5 to Viacom for £463m in 2014
No, but if you join EFTA, then it makes sense to do so. When you open up a treaty for negotiation, every party to it wants a little victory to take away for domestic consumption. Keeping the EEA treaty whole in the first instance reduces the risk of going over the two years, and then having to rely on the Art 50 extension.
There is plenty of time to open up these issues once we are our of the EU, but the first stage is safer with this 'off the shelf' solution.
Oh, certainly, there's no doubt that the EEA route is the safest and least disruptive, and probably fairly easy to achieve. Of course, it does still require the consent of the EFTA countries and the EU countries (it's unclear whether the latter needs to be unanimous), so it's not an automatic right. But you are right that it has the enormous advantage of being off-the-shelf.
Where I don't think you are right is in seeing this as a staging post. Why should our continental partners be happy with that? For that matter, why should UK politicians want to do that? They'll all want to get this resolved, one way or another, not have it drag on for decades to come.
Further to the question of whether we would go for an EEA-style deal if the result is Leave, I'm struggling to find any major support for it at all amongst the main politicians on the Leave side. Owen Paterson was arguing for it a while back, but apart from that there seems to be no support for it amongst prominent Leavers - they almost all mention migration as one of the arguments, as do the two rival Leave campaigns. Where does this idea that we'd end up applying for an EEA-style deal come from? It looks like a political non-starter to me.
You and others for REMAIN go on and on about what will happen if LEAVE wins, yet you never write equally about all the unanswered and unanswerable questions if REMAIN wins. Q. Who will be in Govt to decide this if LEAVE or REMAIN wins? A. A new cabinet from within the Conservative party. Q. What happens if voters at GE2020 do not like the arrangements they make and laws they pass? A: They get upset and vote for alternatives.
That's a nonsense argument. They can get upset and vote for a different alternative if we remain in the EU and things develop in a way they don't like. What's the difference between leaving the EEA and leaving the EU? We could - in theory - do either at any time.
Whether in practice we would do so is another matter; almost certainly not. Any deal we come to after the referendum is probably for a very long time. The disruption is bad enough as it is, without repeating the whole damned exercise!
If that is what the voters want, then that's democracy. There is something rather unpleasant about the suggestion from both sides that if they are lucky they can weather the judgement of the voters in this issue and then can go back to making it up amongst themselves and hopefully not having to ask the voters again for a long time, at least not unless both choices in the vote are offering the same vision with slightly different window dressing which is the usual situation in British politics.
Are we getting to the point where the evidence is piling up which could cause a cabinet resignation or 2 on this TATA steel matter? Javid is in deep trouble although Osborne should be as well.
"Axel Eggert, director general of the European Steel Association, which represents the industry across the continent, told the Financial Times: ‘The UK is the ringleader in a blocking minority of member states that is preventing a European Commission proposal on the modernisation of Europe’s trade defence instruments.
A French diplomat added: ‘In reality, the UK has been opposing an overhaul of the EU’s anti-dumping system.’ In February, Business Secretary Sajid Javid told MPs that punitive tariffs ‘simply do not work’ and would ‘drive up prices’.
If that is what the voters want, then that's democracy. There is something rather unpleasant about the suggestion from both sides that if they are lucky they can weather the judgement of the voters in this issue and then can go back to making it up amongst themselves and hopefully not having to ask the voters again for a long time, at least not unless both choices in the vote are offering the same vision with slightly different window dressing which is the usual situation in British politics.
Not really - these are long-term structural decisions. You can't keep changing your mind every few years.
No, but if you join EFTA, then it makes sense to do so. When you open up a treaty for negotiation, every party to it wants a little victory to take away for domestic consumption. Keeping the EEA treaty whole in the first instance reduces the risk of going over the two years, and then having to rely on the Art 50 extension.
There is plenty of time to open up these issues once we are our of the EU, but the first stage is safer with this 'off the shelf' solution.
Oh, certainly, there's no doubt that the EEA route is the safest and least disruptive, and probably fairly easy to achieve. Of course, it does still of course require the consent of the EFTA countries and the EU countries (it's unclear whether the latter needs to be unanimous), so it's not an automatic right. But you are right that it has the enormous advantage of being off-the-shelf.
Where I don't think you are right is in seeing this as a staging post. Why should our continental partners be happy with that? For that matter, why should UK politicians want to do that? They'll all want to get this resolved, one way or another, not have it drag on for decades to come.
Because the world is changing. Globalised markets will require new solutions. As political freedom is restored to the UK, politics in this country will change and therefore the process of adaptation to world development will be driven by the political parties need to engage with the voter. Democracy, when you have it, can be very effective in driving forward the agenda.
But in the end, the EU will eventually become obsolete in trade terms, because the Non Tariff Barriers legislation at WTO level will start to break down the fences. It can operate as a customs union, but that is protectionist and not really very British in flavour. The conformity rules we all use for trade will slowly harmonise under TBT Art 2.4. That will drive change too. It will be a long process though.
But a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
Comments
https://twitter.com/scotlandvotes/status/715820571381071874
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/01/exclusive-royal-family-considering-dramatic-brexit-intervention
Oh......
My argument was that they are doing their best to win the vote for their side - it is their individual interests to be in the winning side - even though the methods both sides are using are likely to lead to a sub-optimal outcome for the country regardless of the result.
We've end up in a non-cooperation based prisoner's dilemma
Associate membership was what the PM hoped to sell as if it gave freedom, but the timetable was pushed back due to multiple crises. It's why he has gone to polls early, because the treaty is now on permanent hold so there is no deal to wait for. But it's a straight jacket, not a glimpse of freedom.
Strangely though, it's what Dan Hannan previously said he had hoped for, and other Tories too, which is why I thought the PM would go long to Q4 2017 in the hope that the treaty draft could be put on the table. The Migrant Crisis finished that, along with the French/German election timetable.
Oh and we don't need any farming here as we can import everything.
I do enjoy being talked down to. It's so self affirming for those doing it.
If the Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative, I'd have been on the Leave side. But they haven't, so I'm on the Remain side. Zero to do with loyalty.
Reading what you wrote again I agree with you. Bit since immigration is not a driving factor for me it is not something that puts me off the EEA route.
Did the dream involve any cigars and short blunt swords?
I maintain that whatever happens with the referendum, if immigration carries on at the current levels until the next election then the Tories have a big problem.
PRO-EU campaigners have been urged to keep Labour high flier Chuka Umunna away from the TV cameras during the referendum as he puts off voters, it has been claimed.
A senior figure involved in the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign said: “He bombs in focus groups.”
Adding that private polling shows the sharp-suited smoothy was not helping the pro-EU cause, the insider said: “let’s just say he doesn’t turn the dial the right way for us”.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7041632/Pro-EU-campaigners-urged-to-keep-Chuka-Umunna-off-TV-after-claims-he-puts-off-voters.html
In which case "Leadership loyalists" and "Leavers had actually got round to laying out a coherent alternative" are the exact same thing.
All the same, I don't think it's right. It's not the case that politicans are using negative arguments because it's in their individual interests to be on the winning side. For both sides, winning the referendum is absolutely crucial in the interests of the country.
In addition, you are incorrectly assuming that the negative campaigning is insincere. I don't think it is, although some of the sillier manifestations of it are due to over-enthusiasm.
The Tory party is split fairly evenly between Leave and Remain. And of the Leave supporters there appear to be a solid majority happy with the EEA route. Even UKIP's one MP seems to accept that is the best route. Meanwhile a Leave result will strip UKIP of a significant proportion of its support - those who saw it as a tool to achieve Brexit but who are uneasy with its development as a socially conservative organisation..
Boris Johnson confirms a Lexit referendum to decide whether London should leave the UK
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/boris-johnson-confirms-a-lexit-referendum-to-decide-whether-london-should-leave-the-uk/12164.article
- You are right about the ECJ, but the EFTA court would replace it in relation to EEA-related matters, so I'm not sure that's a particularly strong argument.
- CAP, CFP: Yes, we'd be out of those, which is a good thing and a valid advantage of the EEA route
- Unified foreign policy: Not sure what that means in practice.
- Customs Union - that is a slight disadvantage of the EEA route, as it makes exporting to the EU a little more burdensome. Not a big deal, but a negative all the same.
- Justice and Home Affairs: I think this might be somewhat illusory as an argument for leaving (and especially for the EEA route). We had an opt-out, and we signed back in to some of it. The reasons we signed back in will still apply; I expect leaving will make little difference to our wish to do so.
With Turkey as a member within 10 years or not? EU to grow at what rate, 0%, 0.5%, 1% pa? Our payments to the EU to be what over next 10 years? The EU's social policies will be X and lead to Y levels of unemployment? The CAP will be fundamentally reformed?
Of these and other issues, REMAIN can promise nothing on them as it will not be in charge of delivering them - it will be down to 28 countries and EU bureaucrats.
Just as LEAVE campaigns cannot make promises as they will not be the governing party to deliver them...
Donald Trump’s announcement that he no longer stands by a pledge to support the GOP has thrown his hold on South Carolina’s 50 delegates in doubt.
The Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday.
The loyalty pledge is nothing new in South Carolina, where it has been required for decades, but took on new focus in light of Trump’s public musings about a third-party run or withdrawing his support from the eventual nominee if he is stopped at a contested convention.
http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/
Res 1781 46.8%
UKIP 961 25.2%
Con 628 16.5%
Lab 387 10.2%
LDem 49 1.3%
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/tns-poll-belief-uk-will-remain-eu-falls
Tucked away inside:
Certain to Vote: Leave 55 / Remain 45
Certain or Probable Vote: Leave 53 / Remain 47
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/news-centre/news-listing/mayoral-candidates-announced
No, I'm truly gutted.
Assuming the date of April 1st is not significant here, could anybody direct me to the appropriate Govt office where I can fill in one or two forms to get this lavish State aid? I had no idea this was on offer, silly me. Or does it only apply if the transaction involved is worth squillions and has made the news, and the rest of us poor foot soldiers in this are just not worthy of such intervention?
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/715823823430541312
The other thing to consider is that EEA would only be a temporary position to get around the two year Art 50 issues. Beyond that, we would have time to restructure our relationship with the EU further. With the development of WTO non tariff barrier legislation, as a trade bloc it is actually going to become obsolete in time, leaving the political aspect as its main objective.
Q. Who will be in Govt to decide this if LEAVE or REMAIN wins?
A. A new cabinet from within the Conservative party.
Q. What happens if voters at GE2020 do not like the arrangements they make and laws they pass?
A: They get upset and vote for alternatives.
For those of us who do http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/a-letter-from-the-editors-fdrq0p2p0 600 posts 99.9% hating it. We're all suffering from False Consciousness - and terrible narrow minded haters who can't cope with change. Or perhaps we've legitimate criticisms for a service we pay for.
Whether in practice we would do so is another matter; almost certainly not. Any deal we come to after the referendum is probably for a very long time. The disruption is bad enough as it is, without repeating the whole damned exercise!
So staged exit becomes the sensible and pragmatic approach. The Civil Service are apparently already discussing this so we have been told by 'sources' -how reliable that is, well that's anyone's guess.
The Campaigns are looking to tickle the voters, they are picking arguments that they think will win. I don't think they are correct in how they are doing it, but it has little bearing on what happens afterwards from a legal perspective - the question on the ballot paper is a simple one. How the result is achieved is not the question asked.
I know what I'd do - a few days of embarrassment trumps damaging your customer base.
politics.co.uk @Politics_co_uk
Who is really winning the EU referendum race? @GoodwinMJ digs into the numbers http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/04/01/who-is-really-winning-the-eu-referendum-race …
There is plenty of time to open up these issues once we are our of the EU, but the first stage is safer with this 'off the shelf' solution.
Javid is in deep trouble although Osborne should be as well.
"Axel Eggert, director general of the European Steel Association, which represents the industry across the continent, told the Financial Times: ‘The UK is the ringleader in a blocking minority of member states that is preventing a European Commission proposal on the modernisation of Europe’s trade defence instruments.
A French diplomat added: ‘In reality, the UK has been opposing an overhaul of the EU’s anti-dumping system.’ In February, Business Secretary Sajid Javid told MPs that punitive tariffs ‘simply do not work’ and would ‘drive up prices’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518278/UK-blocked-EU-bid-raise-China-steel-tariff-protected-industry-cheap-imports.html#ixzz44ZOLwPf3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Richard Desmond has sold his adult TV business, including the Television X and Red Hot channels, severing his last link with the adult entertainment industry that helped the Daily Express and Daily Star owner make his fortune.
Desmond’s company, Northern & Shell, announced on Friday it had sold its adult broadcasting arm, Portland Television, in a management buyout worth less than £1m, 12 years after he sold his adult magazines.
The deal also marks Desmond’s complete exit from the UK television industry following the sale of Channel 5 to Viacom for £463m in 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/01/richard-desmond-sells-adult-tv-channels-express-star-television-x?CMP=twt_gu
Where I don't think you are right is in seeing this as a staging post. Why should our continental partners be happy with that? For that matter, why should UK politicians want to do that? They'll all want to get this resolved, one way or another, not have it drag on for decades to come.
There's a salutory lesson in there somewhere about the unity of the EU, and what will happen if someone proposes tariffs on EU Brexit.
But in the end, the EU will eventually become obsolete in trade terms, because the Non Tariff Barriers legislation at WTO level will start to break down the fences. It can operate as a customs union, but that is protectionist and not really very British in flavour. The conformity rules we all use for trade will slowly harmonise under TBT Art 2.4. That will drive change too. It will be a long process though.
But a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.