@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
We are already in the EEA, we would be joining EFTA. IT would not be a ruse, just a stage in development - probably lasting a decade or so.
During that time, if FOM became a massive problem, we could invoke EEA art 112/113 as a temporary measure. But that is unlikely because the government needs workforce expansion to drive GDP and economic policy is currently based on that expectation.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
There would be no changes to freedom of movement in the event of Brexit?
Tony E [11 44 am] When did we Brits lose our political freedom?
1972. The law of the community flows up the tributaries of the legal system leaving no policy area unaffected.
You can vote for any party you want, but that government once elected is only part of the European political framework and must abide by its treaty obligations, which are expanding every year due to judicial activism and enhanced competence sharing.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
What they really need is a common border and a common border force with someone who isn't as stupid as Angela Merkel in charge of it.
TonyE [11.57am] That's what I assumed you meant. It's a POV, of course, but not, I feel, one that commands a wide degree of support. Which suggests that people like yourself have failed to make your case these last 40-odd years...
We are already in the EEA, we would be joining EFTA. IT would not be a ruse, just a stage in development - probably lasting a decade or so.
During that time, if FOM became a massive problem, we could invoke EEA art 112/113 as a temporary measure. But that is unlikely because the government needs workforce expansion to drive GDP and economic policy is currently based on that expectation.
As we've discussed many times, we are in the EEA in our capacity as an EU state. We wouldn't automatically become an EFTA state in the terms of that agreement by joining EFTA: the 'EFTA states' are defined in the EEA agreement as Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Significant modifications to the EEA agreement will be necessary, which will of course require the consent of all the signatories (arguably under the EU treaties the EU states have agreed in advance to accept the QMV decision, which is why I said it wasn't clear that the consent would have to be unanimous).
However, that's not the main point - the main point is the political one on freedom of movement. If nothing changes in that respect after a Leave result, there will be all hell to pay politically, and quite rightly so - voters would have been completely conned. That's why I'd be in favour of respecting their decision, in the event of a Leave result, and going for a looser deal. Of course the economic disruption, and possibly the long-term economic damage, would be worse, but that's democracy. At least we'd get something substantial in sovereignty terms in return.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
David Cameron’s flagship strategy to stop Britons becoming extremists suffered an embarrassing blow today as research reveals only 4% of people think it is working.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
There would be no changes to freedom of movement in the event of Brexit?
Not if we join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal. Only if we negotiate a looser deal - the quid pro quo is unclear, but probably we'd not have full access to the Single Market for services. Impossible to be sure, of course - it would be a negotiation, but since the counterparties would be exactly the same people Cameron negotiated with, and there are the EEA and Swiss models, it's unclear why we should expect a better deal.
David Cameron’s flagship strategy to stop Britons becoming extremists suffered an embarrassing blow today as research reveals only 4% of people think it is working.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
I do love daft comments like this. We aren't talking about an obscure scientific theory, but public confidence. This is @SouthamObserver head of pin stuff.
David Cameron’s flagship strategy to stop Britons becoming extremists suffered an embarrassing blow today as research reveals only 4% of people think it is working.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
OR from the other standpoint "What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
Absolutely: during the height of the troubles, we never even tried to seal off the border with the Republic - it was recognised that it was simply far too expensive - in both the direct cost, and the economic cost inflicted by the inevitable border crossings.
If I were asked to make a market in the years the EU will be around, I'd probably say 22-28; it'll probably be Eurozone Crisis III in 2050 that finishes it off. But son-of-Schengen will always be there, because you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
Absolutely: during the height of the troubles, we never even tried to seal off the border with the Republic - it was recognised that it was simply far too expensive - in both the direct cost, and the economic cost inflicted by the inevitable border crossings.
could have built a wall and got the republic to pay
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
Are they not Associates? At least some of them, anyway.
David Cameron’s flagship strategy to stop Britons becoming extremists suffered an embarrassing blow today as research reveals only 4% of people think it is working.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
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.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
Indeed: those that quest for 'total independence' would probably be wise to avoid EFTA/EEA, because where it has been tried, it has ended up very popular.
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
OR from the other standpoint "What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
The French nearly won the Olympic gold medal for cricket.
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B ?
David Cameron’s flagship strategy to stop Britons becoming extremists suffered an embarrassing blow today as research reveals only 4% of people think it is working.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
OR from the other standpoint "What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
The French nearly won the Olympic gold medal for cricket.
For shame, FOR SHAME
I thought we beat the French in the finals in 1900, making us the reigning Olympic champions.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
What gives it away is it doesn't mention turning the M25 in to a moat as a security barrier.
Everything inside the M25 would be tricky but just the City of London would be doable: It was surrounded by checkpoints for a while in the 90s after the Bishopsgate bombing.
Roger- great article. Everything you write just seems intuitive as well which for me should be the defining feature of a successful advertising campaign.
There would be no changes to freedom of movement in the event of Brexit?
Not if we join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal. Only if we negotiate a looser deal - the quid pro quo is unclear, but probably we'd not have full access to the Single Market for services. Impossible to be sure, of course - it would be a negotiation, but since the counterparties would be exactly the same people Cameron negotiated with, and there are the EEA and Swiss models, it's unclear why we should expect a better deal.
Freedom of movement includes the right to work in the UK?
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
OR from the other standpoint "What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
The French nearly won the Olympic gold medal for cricket.
For shame, FOR SHAME
I thought we beat the French in the finals in 1900, making us the reigning Olympic champions.
We did. But the fact the French were second is shameful
Interesting article that I read with dismay, the most important decision in a generation coming down to an advertising campaign. The superficial nature of our politics is ghastly.
We have thread after thread on the EU, every one saying why we shouldn't vote Leave, not a single positive reason to Remain.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
When the first pissed Luxembourgian farmer gets shot by a robot border guard on his way back from a meal in France, the papers would have a field day.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Interesting article that I read with dismay, the most important decision in a generation coming down to an advertising campaign. The superficial nature of our politics is ghastly.
We have thread after thread on the EU, every one saying why we shouldn't vote Leave, not a single positive reason to Remain.
This site is not for polemics. It is for analysis. This article shows why BSE is running with Project Fear. And it does that admirably.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
What they really need is a common border and a common border force with someone who isn't as stupid as Angela Merkel in charge of it.
Quite. Schengen should have been predicated on having a wall of steel running round the outside.
Some of our pollsters already assume 1. That under 25s will do what they say and actually vote. 2. That the under 25s who say they will vote are actually registered. This inflates some of the polling results for REMAIN that we see.
@rcs1000 Yes, in fact the Norwegian pro EU group has folded and conceded that it's effectively game over. The Icelandics are very happy also.
There is no such thing as complete freedom, that would be largely isolationist, but I concede the point that you could get 'stuck' at EEA. But for me that would be no band thing compared to where we are.
The only thing that I would point out is as I did earlier, that trade rules (WTO TBT ) are evolving and the EEA should eventually become obsolete for trade rules, tariffs are constantly falling in most sectors, so nothing ever stays static in the world of trade.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
The only thing that I would point out is as I did earlier, that trade rules (WTO TBT ) are evolving and the EEA should eventually become obsolete for trade rules, tariffs are constantly falling in most sectors, so nothing ever stays static in the world of trade.
Very true. Although the EU is very very slow to change.
There would be no changes to freedom of movement in the event of Brexit?
Not if we join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal. Only if we negotiate a looser deal - the quid pro quo is unclear, but probably we'd not have full access to the Single Market for services. Impossible to be sure, of course - it would be a negotiation, but since the counterparties would be exactly the same people Cameron negotiated with, and there are the EEA and Swiss models, it's unclear why we should expect a better deal.
Freedom of movement includes the right to work in the UK?
It is worth remembering that there is a sliding scale here.
1. Come to the UK! Claim benefits! Get a job (with additional benefits!) 2. Come to the UK! Get a job! No recourse to benefits of any kind. 3. Come to the UK! Buy compulsory health insurance! Get a job!
All three preserve freedom of movement. But there is probably an order of magnitude difference between the number of people coming to the UK between the first and the third scenario.
Watching the fantastic Windies India semis highlights last night it occurred to me that LEAVE's campaign could just consist of excerpts from this awesome tournament.
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
OR from the other standpoint "What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
The French nearly won the Olympic gold medal for cricket.
For shame, FOR SHAME
I thought we beat the French in the finals in 1900, making us the reigning Olympic champions.
We did. But the fact the French were second is shameful
Watched an International Youth tournament last year which included an Italian team. Every one of them had a nume which indicated a South Asian origin. From memory, the other teams in the division were Holland, Guernsey, Italy, Vanuatu and Saudi Arabia. However the latter couldn’t get visas, so didn’t come.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
When the first pissed Luxembourgian farmer gets shot by a robot border guard on his way back from a meal in France, the papers would have a field day.
Anecdote alert. 17 years ago I was regularly entering the USA without showing my passport.
I just went up to a hand reader and it matched my finger prints with their system. It was for Business people at Miami airport.
Interesting article that I read with dismay, the most important decision in a generation coming down to an advertising campaign. The superficial nature of our politics is ghastly.
We have thread after thread on the EU, every one saying why we shouldn't vote Leave, not a single positive reason to Remain.
This site is not for polemics. It is for analysis. This article shows why BSE is running with Project Fear. And it does that admirably.
Oh yes I get that, it doesn't make it right that people such as Crosby are knighted. Our politicians are too useless to communicate ideas effectively, they simply repeat what somebody tells them like sales reps. Look at the reference in the thread header to the person having an affair, whether its true or not is irrelevant in some eyes.
There would be no changes to freedom of movement in the event of Brexit?
Not if we join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal. Only if we negotiate a looser deal - the quid pro quo is unclear, but probably we'd not have full access to the Single Market for services. Impossible to be sure, of course - it would be a negotiation, but since the counterparties would be exactly the same people Cameron negotiated with, and there are the EEA and Swiss models, it's unclear why we should expect a better deal.
Freedom of movement includes the right to work in the UK?
It is worth remembering that there is a sliding scale here.
1. Come to the UK! Claim benefits! Get a job (with additional benefits!) 2. Come to the UK! Get a job! No recourse to benefits of any kind. 3. Come to the UK! Buy compulsory health insurance! Get a job!
All three preserve freedom of movement. But there is probably an order of magnitude difference between the number of people coming to the UK between the first and the third scenario.
Yes, I think scenario 3 would be acceptable for me if it were reciprocal. Brits who go abroad don't qualify for benefits or free healthcare by the same token they wouldn't qualify here.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
The Swiss have a particular problem of not being in the EEA, but having bilateral agreements which the EU has made clear is something it will not enter into again on such a scale. That's why Vote Leave were originally on the wrong track citing Switzerland as an example of how Brexit could be achieved.
My understanding is that there are a number of core agreements, should any of them them fall then all the peripheral ones fall too.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
To be fair, there's a big difference between 10,000 job losses spread around the country and in a sector where other jobs might be available, and 10,000 job losses concentrated in one town where there are very few other opportunities.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
Partly due to a go-slow by the EU of course as they don't want to encourage us.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
What they really need is a common border and a common border force with someone who isn't as stupid as Angela Merkel in charge of it.
Quite. Schengen should have been predicated on having a wall of steel running round the outside.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
When the first pissed Luxembourgian farmer gets shot by a robot border guard on his way back from a meal in France, the papers would have a field day.
Anecdote alert. 17 years ago I was regularly entering the USA without showing my passport.
I just went up to a hand reader and it matched my finger prints with their system. It was for Business people at Miami airport.
INSPass?
I've just signed up for the new version of that (Global Entry)
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
I'm not sure whether the robots are going to want to control human migration or not but if they do I doubt they'll want to do it on the old human national borders.
Concerning. http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1415/hp-sauce "Banks is married to Katya, formerly Ekaterina Paderina, a Russian who was married to a Portsmouth seaman twice her age in the 1990s but was investigated over allegations of a sham marriage. She was reportedly spared with the help of the then local MP, Mike “Handy” Hancock (Eyes passim ad nauseam), "
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
When the first pissed Luxembourgian farmer gets shot by a robot border guard on his way back from a meal in France, the papers would have a field day.
Anecdote alert. 17 years ago I was regularly entering the USA without showing my passport.
I just went up to a hand reader and it matched my finger prints with their system. It was for Business people at Miami airport.
INSPass?
I've just signed up for the new version of that (Global Entry)
I think that was what it was called. Worked for a year or so and then developed a high failure rate and I went back to the passport.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
The oil industry, which is generally profitable, has shed far more jobs, with little to no public outcry. The steel industry, with problems running back decades and Tata losing a £1 million per day, gets public support which would almost certainly cost us hundreds of millions of pounds to little ultimate benefit. But neither North Sea oil or British steel looks like a great long term investment if you wanted to actually make some money.
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
I'm not sure whether the robots are going to want to control human migration or not but if they do I doubt they'll want to do it on the old human national borders.
Why would they not replace passport checks etc at the borders?
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
I'm not sure whether the robots are going to want to control human migration or not but if they do I doubt they'll want to do it on the old human national borders.
Why would they not replace passport checks etc at the borders?
What are you thinking they're going to want to accomplish with the borders? If they're just trying to maximize production they'll get rid of them altogether, and if they're trying to control insurrection they'll want more fine-grained controls, eg when you leave your house, assuming you're allowed to do that.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
It's the concentration effect. This also explains why British Leyland have leverage and why geographically spread industries make more political party contributions than concentrated ones.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B ?
x*y. z is irrelevant. e.g. half mention fish and half mention snakes; a quarter can be expected to mention both.
This is going to boost Cameron's popularity so much.
The UK government has asked Slaughter and May to advise on the consequences of assassinating Donald Trump.
An explosive letter from the Foreign Office to the Magic Circle firm reveals that an unnamed MP asked it last December to explore the "legal ramifications" of torpedoing the election of The Donald by blackmailing Republican delegates or lacing Trump's steaks with poison.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
There has already been a fair bit of Government money gone into Graphene research - some of it even from the EU. I don't think the limitation with Graphene is lack of funding.
However, I'll hazard a guess that most science academics and researchers did not envisage a career that involved working in Port Talbot, Corby, Scunthorpe or some such and even if they did want to relocate to these towns, the jobs would go to researchers from all over the world rather than someone who has worked in a blast furnace for the last 30 years.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
I direct TV commercials so all the decisions on what sort of campaign to run have usually been made before I get to look at a script. My job is to make it look good and for it to make sense. These days research has pretty well taken over so the choice of negative or positive will more than likely have been decided by a planner a researcher and lots of percentages.
I'd also be interested to hear from someone from one of those departments or even someone who is or has pitched for one of these accounts. I was going to ask Carlotta who I think is/was a brand manager for her thoughts.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice.
Of course there's a choice. The government can *not* pick winners. For the sake of argument if some other government wants to subsidize manufacturing raw materials, let your people buy the raw materials and make useful things that they can sell at a profit, and pass on the savings to consumers who get better stuff.
I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
I'm not defending Hinkley but if you're almost guaranteed a 10-20x gain, why isn't the private sector doing it already?
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
What money needs to be spent on graphene that isn't already being spent (i.e. what do you actually want them to do that isn't being done)?
And, if it's a 'dead cert', where can I invest in one of the funds which will no doubt be falling over themselves to put money in already?
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
The oil industry, which is generally profitable, has shed far more jobs, with little to no public outcry. The steel industry, with problems running back decades and Tata losing a £1 million per day, gets public support which would almost certainly cost us hundreds of millions of pounds to little ultimate benefit. But neither North Sea oil or British steel looks like a great long term investment if you wanted to actually make some money.
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU? According to Tata the British government has not helped. Why? Are they too busy sucking up to the Chinese so they can get the Renminbi traded in the City? The city is of course the Tory party's Mecca and where they are so reliant on for party funds. Why is the left not pushing this?!
On steel, the issue about Britain blocking tariffs on Chinese dumping is probably the more fundamental one, because it reflects long-standing British policy - Britain, as an island, sees itself dependent on world trade, so is against almost anything that discourages it, even unfair trading. Our basic position is "So the Chinese want to sell us steel (or anything else) more cheaply than it costs to make? Fine, bring it on."
The direct effect is what we're seeing in Port Talbot. The macroeconomic difficulty is the reason that the WTO has an anti-dumping policy - if China was able to force most competitors out of business, they could put the price back up. That isn't very likely, as there's so much steel capacity around the world, but as British policy in this area isn't just for steel, it's probably a lesson to be learned: don't be so fanatical about free trade that you actually support dumping.
The establishment torpedoed Winston McKenzie's chance of becoming London Mayor, the swines.
Statement on English Democrats candidate Mayoral submission
The nominations process for Mayor of London candidates opened on March 21st 2016 and closed at 4pm on March 31 2016.
London Elects encouraged all prospective candidates to contact them within good time to discuss the process and to give advice on the paperwork required. This was made very clear to all who had shown an interest in the nominations process.
The English Democrats prospective candidate for Mayor of London, Winston McKenzie, met with London Elects for the first time at 13.45 on March 31 2016. At that time, the paperwork was incomplete.
Mr McKenzie was given the opportunity to resolve matters by the 4pm legal deadline.
Mr McKenzie and his agent did not submit all the paperwork by the 4pm deadline. Upon inspection, the incomplete forms contained errors which would have invalidated the nomination - in the form of duplicate signatures from other candidates’ nomination papers.
Electoral law is explicit and the rules must be applied in all cases.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
On steel, the issue about Britain blocking tariffs on Chinese dumping is probably the more fundamental one, because it reflects long-standing British policy - Britain, as an island, sees itself dependent on world trade, so is against almost anything that discourages it, even unfair trading. Our basic position is "So the Chinese want to sell us steel (or anything else) more cheaply than it costs to make? Fine, bring it on."
The direct effect is what we're seeing in Port Talbot. The macroeconomic difficulty is the reason that the WTO has an anti-dumping policy - if China was able to force most competitors out of business, they could put the price back up. That isn't very likely, as there's so much steel capacity around the world, but as British policy in this area isn't just for steel, it's probably a lesson to be learned: don't be so fanatical about free trade that you actually support dumping.
The flip side to this is that "dumping" (if dumping it be: very often the charge of "dumping" is made simply because someone can make something cheaper than us, rather than that they are deliberately making a loss to drive our own industry out of business) is effectively the Chinese government/companies giving a subsidy to our own industries for which steel is an input rather than an output. And those industries are important too.
Not so dramatic when those industries do not recruit new workers/cut jobs in dribs and drabs, rather than when the steel industry threatens a "big collapse". But rationally, those jobs count too, and there is quite literally a price to pay for forcing up the prices of imports.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
The oil industry, which is generally profitable, has shed far more jobs, with little to no public outcry. The steel industry, with problems running back decades and Tata losing a £1 million per day, gets public support which would almost certainly cost us hundreds of millions of pounds to little ultimate benefit. But neither North Sea oil or British steel looks like a great long term investment if you wanted to actually make some money.
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU? According to Tata the British government has not helped. Why? Are they too busy sucking up to the Chinese so they can get the Renminbi traded in the City? The city is of course the Tory party's Mecca and where they are so reliant on for party funds. Why is the left not pushing this?!
The US has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel because there's a lot of steel production in swing states. They imposed tariffs on EU steel in the past as well. (The EU fought this off by threatening punitive tariffs on oranges from Florida, cars from Michigan, etc.)
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
What projects and research would you put the money into? You must have an idea to say the gain is almost guaranteed.
I'd say the government's best off investing in enabling technology and equipment, such as the Diamond Light Source. When interesting, risky but large pay-off projects need help (say the Sabre people) then help them if possible.
Laser fusion is much more complex. Investing in a group into aneutronic fusion (similar to the French group working on Boron fusion) might be an idea. A very small chance of success, but the rewards are stellar.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
The oil industry, which is generally profitable, has shed far more jobs, with little to no public outcry. The steel industry, with problems running back decades and Tata losing a £1 million per day, gets public support which would almost certainly cost us hundreds of millions of pounds to little ultimate benefit. But neither North Sea oil or British steel looks like a great long term investment if you wanted to actually make some money.
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU? According to Tata the British government has not helped. Why? Are they too busy sucking up to the Chinese so they can get the Renminbi traded in the City? The city is of course the Tory party's Mecca and where they are so reliant on for party funds. Why is the left not pushing this?!
Labour can't really be taken seriously on this, having replaced the representative from Community on the NEC, with one from the Bakers Union.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
Autumn Statement 2014: Manchester to get £235m science research centre
Three other things which are under-remarked in media coverage of the steel crisis.
It makes a big difference what kind of steel production you are talking about. Steel is not a completely homogeneous industry. There are different types of steel being produced, and different modes of production (in particular whether it's being made from ore or made from recycled material) and the situation is different between these market segments.
Secondly, the "self-sufficiency" in a "strategic industry" thing is a bit of red herring, since Britain is not self-sufficient in iron ore. (As I understand it, iron ore is mostly imported from... China.)
Thirdly, steel is always going to be a big consumer of energy. (In a sense, exports of steel and aluminium are a physically-crystallised form of energy export.) If we want to be lean, clean and green then that's the kind of industry that ought to be suffering, if our environmental policies are "working". The bigger question is whether "we" (and different sections of society may have quite different answers to this question) really want "our" energy policy to "work" in this manner.
On steel, the issue about Britain blocking tariffs on Chinese dumping is probably the more fundamental one, because it reflects long-standing British policy - Britain, as an island, sees itself dependent on world trade, so is against almost anything that discourages it, even unfair trading. Our basic position is "So the Chinese want to sell us steel (or anything else) more cheaply than it costs to make? Fine, bring it on."
The direct effect is what we're seeing in Port Talbot. The macroeconomic difficulty is the reason that the WTO has an anti-dumping policy - if China was able to force most competitors out of business, they could put the price back up. That isn't very likely, as there's so much steel capacity around the world, but as British policy in this area isn't just for steel, it's probably a lesson to be learned: don't be so fanatical about free trade that you actually support dumping.
There's a very good piece by Ambrose Evans Pritchard in the Torygraph on the UK current account.
We're absorbing lots of foreign capital to finance our consumption. There's only one way that is going to end. No doubt everyone in the City is happy at the free-flowing capital as out real economy sinks without trace and possibly unbearable pressures are put on the future of the union. Still perhaps it's more important to be 'China's best friend' and get a bit of extra business for the flash boys in the square mile.
Have you considered the total inability of your party leadership to make this point effectively?
@faisalislam: New tariff announced today re Chinese steel. 46%. By China. On EU. hi-tec "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel". Made by...Tata Steel in Newport
@faisalislam: China says that "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel" has been dumped by EU in China causing "substantial damage" to justify a 46.3% duty
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
The oil industry, which is generally profitable, has shed far more jobs, with little to no public outcry. The steel industry, with problems running back decades and Tata losing a £1 million per day, gets public support which would almost certainly cost us hundreds of millions of pounds to little ultimate benefit. But neither North Sea oil or British steel looks like a great long term investment if you wanted to actually make some money.
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU? According to Tata the British government has not helped. Why? Are they too busy sucking up to the Chinese so they can get the Renminbi traded in the City? The city is of course the Tory party's Mecca and where they are so reliant on for party funds. Why is the left not pushing this?!
They imposed tariffs on EU steel in the past as well. (The EU fought this off by threatening punitive tariffs on oranges from Florida, cars from Michigan, etc.)
Comments
During that time, if FOM became a massive problem, we could invoke EEA art 112/113 as a temporary measure. But that is unlikely because the government needs workforce expansion to drive GDP and economic policy is currently based on that expectation.
What happens if under-25s turn out to vote like their grandparents in the EU referendum? https://t.co/36d62gNOHs https://t.co/cnlc2v0YtJ
You can vote for any party you want, but that government once elected is only part of the European political framework and must abide by its treaty obligations, which are expanding every year due to judicial activism and enhanced competence sharing.
However, that's not the main point - the main point is the political one on freedom of movement. If nothing changes in that respect after a Leave result, there will be all hell to pay politically, and quite rightly so - voters would have been completely conned. That's why I'd be in favour of respecting their decision, in the event of a Leave result, and going for a looser deal. Of course the economic disruption, and possibly the long-term economic damage, would be worse, but that's democracy. At least we'd get something substantial in sovereignty terms in return.
The Prevent policy is a key part of the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts, with teachers, lecturers, social workers, prison officers and NHS managers under a legal obligation to report signs of radicalisation....
...BMG Research statisticians were so surprised by the findings that they ran the poll twice to check them.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/only-4-of-people-think-david-camerons-antiextremist-policy-works-a3215961.html
Look at what we're missing. Amazing countries, amazing energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity.
"What's the point of Europe, they don't even play Cricket?!" ;-)
If I were asked to make a market in the years the EU will be around, I'd probably say 22-28; it'll probably be Eurozone Crisis III in 2050 that finishes it off. But son-of-Schengen will always be there, because you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
Indeed: those that quest for 'total independence' would probably be wise to avoid EFTA/EEA, because where it has been tried, it has ended up very popular.
For shame, FOR SHAME
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B
We have thread after thread on the EU, every one saying why we shouldn't vote Leave, not a single positive reason to Remain.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/715858947614326784
1. That under 25s will do what they say and actually vote.
2. That the under 25s who say they will vote are actually registered.
This inflates some of the polling results for REMAIN that we see.
@rcs1000
Yes, in fact the Norwegian pro EU group has folded and conceded that it's effectively game over. The Icelandics are very happy also.
There is no such thing as complete freedom, that would be largely isolationist, but I concede the point that you could get 'stuck' at EEA. But for me that would be no band thing compared to where we are.
The only thing that I would point out is as I did earlier, that trade rules (WTO TBT ) are evolving and the EEA should eventually become obsolete for trade rules, tariffs are constantly falling in most sectors, so nothing ever stays static in the world of trade.
1. Come to the UK! Claim benefits! Get a job (with additional benefits!)
2. Come to the UK! Get a job! No recourse to benefits of any kind.
3. Come to the UK! Buy compulsory health insurance! Get a job!
All three preserve freedom of movement. But there is probably an order of magnitude difference between the number of people coming to the UK between the first and the third scenario.
From memory, the other teams in the division were Holland, Guernsey, Italy, Vanuatu and Saudi Arabia. However the latter couldn’t get visas, so didn’t come.
I just went up to a hand reader and it matched my finger prints with their system. It was for Business people at Miami airport.
Unregistered, registered at the wrong address, more interested in things befitting their age band, off on their post school/post uni blow-out etc.
Imagine it's a blazingly hot day - perfectly feasible late in June. Are they going to trot off to vote?
I find that risible.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Do you support taxpayer's money bailing out a foreign owned company?
My understanding is that there are a number of core agreements, should any of them them fall then all the peripheral ones fall too.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/01/khan-eu-should-not-be-christian-club/
http://thebrexitdoor.com/2016/04/01/a-positive-message/
I've just signed up for the new version of that (Global Entry)
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1415/hp-sauce
"Banks is married to Katya, formerly Ekaterina Paderina, a Russian who was married to a Portsmouth seaman twice her age in the 1990s but was investigated over allegations of a sham marriage. She was reportedly spared with the help of the then local MP, Mike “Handy” Hancock (Eyes passim ad nauseam), "
Concern correlation on major issues (Forced average of 1)
Highest: Schools/Hospitals 1.59
Immigration/EU 1.05
NHS/EU 1
Lowest: Immigration/Economy 0.66
http://tinyurl.com/Ipsosconcerns
It's thinking like that which is why just about everything in this country is f*cked.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
Should the govt bail out EVERY loss making company?
Why do you ask?
The UK government has asked Slaughter and May to advise on the consequences of assassinating Donald Trump.
An explosive letter from the Foreign Office to the Magic Circle firm reveals that an unnamed MP asked it last December to explore the "legal ramifications" of torpedoing the election of The Donald by blackmailing Republican delegates or lacing Trump's steaks with poison.
http://rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/4502/fromTab/36/currentIndex/5/Default.aspx
There has already been a fair bit of Government money gone into Graphene research - some of it even from the EU. I don't think the limitation with Graphene is lack of funding.
However, I'll hazard a guess that most science academics and researchers did not envisage a career that involved working in Port Talbot, Corby, Scunthorpe or some such and even if they did want to relocate to these towns, the jobs would go to researchers from all over the world rather than someone who has worked in a blast furnace for the last 30 years.
I'd also be interested to hear from someone from one of those departments or even someone who is or has pitched for one of these accounts. I was going to ask Carlotta who I think is/was a brand manager for her thoughts.
And, if it's a 'dead cert', where can I invest in one of the funds which will no doubt be falling over themselves to put money in already?
The direct effect is what we're seeing in Port Talbot. The macroeconomic difficulty is the reason that the WTO has an anti-dumping policy - if China was able to force most competitors out of business, they could put the price back up. That isn't very likely, as there's so much steel capacity around the world, but as British policy in this area isn't just for steel, it's probably a lesson to be learned: don't be so fanatical about free trade that you actually support dumping.
Statement on English Democrats candidate Mayoral submission
The nominations process for Mayor of London candidates opened on March 21st 2016 and closed at 4pm on March 31 2016.
London Elects encouraged all prospective candidates to contact them within good time to discuss the process and to give advice on the paperwork required. This was made very clear to all who had shown an interest in the nominations process.
The English Democrats prospective candidate for Mayor of London, Winston McKenzie, met with London Elects for the first time at 13.45 on March 31 2016. At that time, the paperwork was incomplete.
Mr McKenzie was given the opportunity to resolve matters by the 4pm legal deadline.
Mr McKenzie and his agent did not submit all the paperwork by the 4pm deadline. Upon inspection, the incomplete forms contained errors which would have invalidated the nomination - in the form of duplicate signatures from other candidates’ nomination papers.
Electoral law is explicit and the rules must be applied in all cases.
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/news-centre/news-listing/incomplete-mayoral-nomination-paperwork
Not so dramatic when those industries do not recruit new workers/cut jobs in dribs and drabs, rather than when the steel industry threatens a "big collapse". But rationally, those jobs count too, and there is quite literally a price to pay for forcing up the prices of imports.
I'd say the government's best off investing in enabling technology and equipment, such as the Diamond Light Source. When interesting, risky but large pay-off projects need help (say the Sabre people) then help them if possible.
Laser fusion is much more complex. Investing in a group into aneutronic fusion (similar to the French group working on Boron fusion) might be an idea. A very small chance of success, but the rewards are stellar.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
Autumn Statement 2014: Manchester to get £235m science research centre
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30309451
It makes a big difference what kind of steel production you are talking about. Steel is not a completely homogeneous industry. There are different types of steel being produced, and different modes of production (in particular whether it's being made from ore or made from recycled material) and the situation is different between these market segments.
Secondly, the "self-sufficiency" in a "strategic industry" thing is a bit of red herring, since Britain is not self-sufficient in iron ore. (As I understand it, iron ore is mostly imported from... China.)
Thirdly, steel is always going to be a big consumer of energy. (In a sense, exports of steel and aluminium are a physically-crystallised form of energy export.) If we want to be lean, clean and green then that's the kind of industry that ought to be suffering, if our environmental policies are "working". The bigger question is whether "we" (and different sections of society may have quite different answers to this question) really want "our" energy policy to "work" in this manner.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/31/britain-courts-fate-on-brexit-with-worst-external-deficit-in-his/
We're absorbing lots of foreign capital to finance our consumption. There's only one way that is going to end. No doubt everyone in the City is happy at the free-flowing capital as out real economy sinks without trace and possibly unbearable pressures are put on the future of the union. Still perhaps it's more important to be 'China's best friend' and get a bit of extra business for the flash boys in the square mile.
Have you considered the total inability of your party leadership to make this point effectively?
By China. On EU. hi-tec "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel". Made by...Tata Steel in Newport
@faisalislam: China says that "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel" has been dumped by EU in China causing "substantial damage" to justify a 46.3% duty
There's a positive message for Remain.