politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Port Talbot could give us a pointer to the EURef

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Port Talbot could give us a pointer to the EURef

In the hot-house of political reporting and comment, individual stories invariably seem more important at the time than they subsequently turn out to be. The future of the Port Talbot steel works is likely to be one such case.

Read the full story here

foxinsoxuk

First like Hillary!

Danny565

Good article, but a point of order:

"Europe is likely to dominate the political narrative in the media throughout April and beyond": Will it really? It might be my imagination, but I think Europe seems to have dropped well down the agenda in the last couple of weeks - perhaps because media have realised that they were previously giving it disproportionate coverage compared to the public interest. I expect if anything there will be even less coverage of it through April - I think news coverage is mandated to spend an allocated amount of time on local elections, which will surely take up most of all the political slots and squeeze out EU-related stories.

dugarbandier

FPT the Philipines and Puerto Rico could have become US states. Guess the world would look a little different now (Though war with China might be a closer prospect than it is now..)

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...

It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...

Doc, I am very hesitant to believe conspiracy when incompetence is still an option.

Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?

I think Phillipino training is better than our own. Certainly the professionalism of our Phillipino Nurses is impeccable. Excellent English too, which is why we now get so many migrants from the Phillipines, a country that we have no historic links with.

The Spanish and Portuguese Nurses are all at degree level, and their degrees cover a number of skills considered postgraduate in the UK. Mind you, I think that British Nurse training leaves a lot to be desired!

The competition for nursing positions abroad in the Philippines is cut-throat, I have relatives that have and/or are applying, and you need a good degree and two years of continuous hospital experience before you will even be considered. The down side of this is it means that there is huge competition to get those two years of experience here and there is a surplus of nursing graduates and hence hospitals are tending now to charge nurses for the pleasure of working for them for the first two years to get the experience. A number of very able nurses from less well off families are as a result unable to get their toe in the door and get a job that might help support their family.

The Philippines is one of the most qualified countries I have ever been to, because the number of proper salaried jobs is so low families bankrupt themselves to educate their children, and hence employers are able to hold out for the best qualified, for example, it's almost impossible to get a job in retail that involves operating a cash register without an accounting degree.

SouthamObserver

The UK's voice was heard loud and clear by the EU: keep tariffs on Chinese steel low. I thought one of the Leave side's big complaints was that the British are marginalised and ignored. But here is an example of our government getting exactly what it wanted.

We blame the EU time and again for decisions made in UK boardrooms or at Westminster.

SouthamObserver

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

Indigo

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

SouthamObserver

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indigo

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

PAW

Difficult to understand the Phillipino training, didn't that Phillipino who was murdering old women in his hospital turn out to have a photo copy of a training document?

SouthamObserver

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Observer, yes, but the problem with the 500 million people argument is that the negotiating stance the EU takes will not be the British position, it'll be the EU position. Whilst the 65 million will have less weight, the position will be aligned with our national interest.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Observer, yes, but the problem with the 500 million people argument is that the negotiating stance the EU takes will not be the British position, it'll be the EU position. Whilst the 65 million will have less weight, the position will be aligned with our national interest.

We can protect what the government deems to be in our national interest within the EU - see low steel tariffs. I'd argue it's not in our national interest to conclude lop-sided bilateral trade deals.

RobD

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

An interesting point in terms of population share I hadn't considered before.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

The fact that the UK government prevented higher tariffs being levied on Chinese steel shows we do have considerable influence.

Richard_Tyndall

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

The problem being that we are also negotiating as part of a 28 member bloc with often significantly different ideas of what we want our negotiating strategy to be and what we are willing to compromise on to get it. So even when a deal.is done there is no guarantee it will be the deal we wanted. In the end we are not a single market of 500 million people. We are a market of 28 separate nations who all have slightly - or radically - different aims and objectives from any trade deals.

This is one reason why these deals involving the EU take so.manu years to finalise and why in the end they are generally sub optimal. It is not necessarily the fault of the country we are negotiating with but the failure to agree our own EU negotiating position.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, wasn't the EU split down the middle?

[Not saying that makes the Government position coherent, mind].

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

An interesting point in terms of population share I hadn't considered before.

If a country of 65 million fails to exert sufficient influence over countries with significantly lower populations that is its failure. It also makes me wonder how we'd fare in negotiations with much larger countries.

As I said downthread, all too often we blame the EU for decisions taken in British boardrooms and in Westminster.

SouthamObserver

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

The problem being that we are also negotiating as part of a 28 member bloc with often significantly different ideas of what we want our negotiating strategy to be and what we are willing to compromise on to get it. So even when a deal.is done there is no guarantee it will be the deal we wanted. In the end we are not a single market of 500 million people. We are a market of 28 separate nations who all have slightly - or radically - different aims and objectives from any trade deals.

This is one reason why these deals involving the EU take so.manu years to finalise and why in the end they are generally sub optimal. It is not necessarily the fault of the country we are negotiating with but the failure to agree our own EU negotiating position.

I agree that the UK has been very poor at building alliances within the EU. That does not fill me with confidence we'll be very good at agreeing beneficial trade deals outside the EU. For me it makes more sense to fight our case inside the bloc that will get most leverage.

Indigo

PAW said:

Difficult to understand the Phillipino training, didn't that Phillipino who was murdering old women in his hospital turn out to have a photo copy of a training document?

All countries have their crooks, weirdos and people with false documents... A few years ago I was working at a large software company doing their recruitment, we got a CV from a developer in India, on paper he was excellent, we conducted a telephone interview, which he passed with flying colours, after he had been with us for a week or two our suspicions started to be roused (because he was crap) and when finally we put it to him he wasn't as good as he appeared in the interview it transpired the CV was a work of fiction and the person on the phone wasn't him... we didn't use that consultancy after that

blackburn63

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

Which is why we should have free trade deals.

The vast majority of the electorate glaze over at discussions like these but talk to anybody heading the Leave campaigns, they will want a free trade deal/ No tariffs, single markets, restrictions, simply people buying and selling to their advantage.

Anybody oppose that principle?

RobD

Indigo said:

PAW said:

Difficult to understand the Phillipino training, didn't that Phillipino who was murdering old women in his hospital turn out to have a photo copy of a training document?

All countries have their crooks, weirdos and people with false documents... A few years ago I was working at a large software company doing their recruitment, we got a CV from a developer in India, on paper he was excellent, we conducted a telephone interview, which he passed with flying colours, after he had been with us for a week or two our suspicions started to be roused (because he was crap) and when finally we put it to him he wasn't as good as he appeared in the interview it transpired the CV was a work of fiction and the person on the phone wasn't him... we didn't use that consultancy after that

Sounded like I had a chance working for your company.. until that last sentence

Indigo

RobD said:

Indigo said:

PAW said:

Difficult to understand the Phillipino training, didn't that Phillipino who was murdering old women in his hospital turn out to have a photo copy of a training document?

All countries have their crooks, weirdos and people with false documents... A few years ago I was working at a large software company doing their recruitment, we got a CV from a developer in India, on paper he was excellent, we conducted a telephone interview, which he passed with flying colours, after he had been with us for a week or two our suspicions started to be roused (because he was crap) and when finally we put it to him he wasn't as good as he appeared in the interview it transpired the CV was a work of fiction and the person on the phone wasn't him... we didn't use that consultancy after that

Sounded like I had a chance working for your company.. until that last sentence

SouthamObserver

blackburn63 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

Which is why we should have free trade deals.

The vast majority of the electorate glaze over at discussions like these but talk to anybody heading the Leave campaigns, they will want a free trade deal/ No tariffs, single markets, restrictions, simply people buying and selling to their advantage.

Anybody oppose that principle?

No, I am all for it. I hugely value the single market in Europe.

Jonathan

The single (labour) market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

SouthamObserver

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

Jonathan

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

This option is currently missing from the whole EU debate. Arguably it's missing from politics in general as parties compete with each other for how far to turn the clock back.

What I would give for a party with genuine new ideas and the balls to lead and work to make things better.

SouthamObserver

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

This option is currently missing from the whole EU debate. Arguably it's missing from politics in general as parties compete with each other for how far to turn the clock back.

What I would give for a party with genuine new ideas and the balls to lead and work to make things better.

Sigh ...

I am with you, brother

JosiasJessop

An example of how you can be on the bleading edge of technology, and still lose out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35924858

We need companies and institutions not only to research, but have the mindset for long-term development of products.

philiph

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

The fact that the UK government prevented higher tariffs being levied on Chinese steel shows we do have considerable influence.

I would agree if we are isolated in wanting that position . I did read that there were multiple nations (10?) aligned with us.

On trade deals how much of a threat is the production capacity of a 70 million population to the other negotiating country's indigenous industry compared to a 500 million population? Some trading partners may want extra protection from large blocks.

Innocent_Abroad

RobD said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

An interesting point in terms of population share I hadn't considered before.

That is an argument for the break-up of the UK, if it is true. I don't actually believe that Cyprus and Lithuania have the same weight at Brussels as France or Germany. Perhaps someone here can explain to me why I should.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

An interesting point in terms of population share I hadn't considered before.

That is an argument for the break-up of the UK, if it is true. I don't actually believe that Cyprus and Lithuania have the same weight at Brussels as France or Germany. Perhaps someone here can explain to me why I should.

Depends on the matter at hand.

With QMV clearly not since it's based at least loosely on population.

With unanimity, absolutely, 3m Lithuanians can veto a treaty just as effectively as 80m Germans

Indigo

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

The fact that the UK government prevented higher tariffs being levied on Chinese steel shows we do have considerable influence.

I would agree if we are isolated in wanting that position . I did read that there were multiple nations (10?) aligned with us.

On trade deals how much of a threat is the production capacity of a 70 million population to the other negotiating country's indigenous industry compared to a 500 million population? Some trading partners may want extra protection from large blocks.

14 I believe. Which would probably be enough to pass QMV easily is most usual circumstances.

kle4

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

This option is currently missing from the whole EU debate. Arguably it's missing from politics in general as parties compete with each other for how far to turn the clock back.

What I would give for a party with genuine new ideas and the balls to lead and work to make things better.

There's a lot of talking about making the EU better, but it seems entirely token. The problem seems to be those politicians suggesting it in this country don't appear very enthusiastic about their chances of managing it, the public at large don't believe they can manage if, and most of what we hear reported of views from Others in the EU, particularly given we are endlessly told how isolated we are and how sick they are of our complaining, is that they actively oppose any attempts at reform that don't fit a very narrow and proscribed path, and in fact are occasionally openly contemptuous of any suggestions outside those definitions.

The Uk has chosen to perceive itself as being on the periphery, unique in its vision of what it thinks the eu should and should not be, and that limits what we can do, but it is a two way street - time and again concerns we have are reacted to as only our concerns and no one else's, when even if we are the most eurosceptic, we're not alone in having concerns.

All of which makes arguing they have the ideas and balls to lead and work to make things better difficult for any party. All sides here and in the Eu have combined to, intentionally or not, make it seem damn near impossible to achieve substantive change, unless that change is in one direction which in this country for certain is not popular.

All of which is a long winded way of saying working for positive change is a nice dream, but the system seems designed against permitting it, hence why the debate talks back on the less inspiring but more realistic 'get out and take the risk' or 'accept the bad with the good and maybe, somehow but no promises, it can be made better but probably not'

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Abroad, leaving aside other arguments, the Scots did recently have a vote on that matter...

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The governments response?

It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...

Doc,

I think Phillipino training is better than our own. Certainly the professionalism of our Phillipino Nurses !

The competition for nursing positions abroad in the Philippines is cut-throat, I have relatives that have and/or are applying, and you need a good degree and two years of continuous hospital experience before you will even be considered. The down side of this is it means that there is huge competition to get those two years of experience here and there is a surplus of nursing graduates and hence hospitals are tending now to charge nurses for the pleasure of working for them for the first two years to get the experience. A number of very able nurses from less well off families are as a result unable to get their toe in the door and get a job that might help support their family.

The Philippines is one of the most qualified countries I have ever been to, because the number of proper salaried jobs is so low families bankrupt themselves to educate their children, and hence employers are able to hold out for the best qualified, for example, it's almost impossible to get a job in retail that involves operating a cash register without an accounting degree.

Not only are Filipinos very well qualified, the use of English as a second language is widespread and the culture is much more westernised than most non-EU countries that we get immigrants from. The Spanish, then American influence means that people are very comfortable in western culture, being by and large Catholic (there is a Muslim minority).

I sometimes wonder how incompetent the governments there have been. Such a talented, industrious and skilled people should make for a much wealthier country than it is. Sadly the Philippines principal export remains its people. It is like Ireland in the last century, generating a world wide diaspora.

When people resent immigrants, it is worth noting that Filipinos are never mentioned, despite there being about 200 000 in the country. I think that this is because they integrate so well, and have a very high employment rate. The fact that Filipinos are the second largest group applying for British citizenship testifies to this (and the fact that opportunities back home are very limited). They want to integrate.

Ideally I would like the UK to train and retain enough of its own essential personnel to not need to recruit abroad, but decades of incompetence in personnel management in the UK means that we do not. It is much harder to recruit there now because of the Tory immigration limits on visas. I would take any number of Filipino Nurses over dubious arranged marrages from Mirapur or family reunification from MENA.

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

An example of how you can be on the bleading edge of technology, and still lose out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35924858

We need companies and institutions not only to research, but have the mindset for long-term development of products.

See graphene also.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

So about this post-Brexit free trade deal with the Chinese that will give us far greater access to the Chinese market than anything we'd ever get as a member state of the EU ...

You were whistling this tune yesterday as well, no one was interested then either. Probably because its speculative handwaving.

It's what we've been told. Apparently we'll get better deals outside the EU than inside. But, yes, I agree: such claims are speculative, at best.

Indeed, and so if it is speculative that things will be better outside, it is equally speculative that things will be worse, hence your attack is getting no cut-through. Worse it sounds like a lack of confidence in your country, which is never attractive in someone trying to sell a political position, look at all the stick the government gets about saying we are too small, to stupid, to inefficient etc, to go it alone.

My attack is not an attack, it's an observation on an internet message board. I have every confidence in the country I live in and I want it to have the best chance to thrive. My guess is that when negotiating with the Chinese (the Americans, the Indians and so on) you have more leverage as part of a single market of 500 million people than you do as a market of 65 million people. Recent events have reinforced that view. We don't want any old trade deals, we want the very best ones.

1/28 x 500m = 18m

1/1 x 70 = 70m

Unless you believe we have 3-4x the influence of smaller members in trade negotiations then we are better off negotiating our own deals. In any event, I think we would be - even if the terms on individual items may be less good, the overall package can be optimised.

I've posted the Mercosur example a few times and no one has ever come up with why it is in the UK's interests

The fact that the UK government prevented higher tariffs being levied on Chinese steel shows we do have considerable influence.

We didn't.

14 out of 28 countries voted against tariff increases. Don't overstate our importance

Indigo

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

The problem is that the EU is conspicuously not interested in reform, is irredeemably federalist, and rapidly becoming an economic backwater (9% GDP growth in the last 10 years, half that of America, about a quarter of South America and around a 10th of that of China)

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Indigo, quite. It's like a man trying to persuade his nymphomaniac wife to stop having affairs, or an abused girlfriend trying to 'change' her boyfriend. The EU's on rails.

Morris_Dancer

F1: I think P3 starts at 1pm and qualifying at 3pm today.

Got a bet in mind but we'll see how things go. Also, I need to remember (for the race) to check the state of Ferrari's apparently dodgy engine (lack of turbo boost along the straight. Won't be mended until Spain, apparently).

Also, don't forget to buy my book (or give the sample a check to see if it's up your street):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK/

Very early days, but so far it's going down well.

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

Not only are Filipinos very well qualified, the use of English as a second language is widespread and the culture is much more westernised than most non-EU countries that we get immigrants from. The Spanish, then American influence means that people are very comfortable in western culture, being by and large Catholic (there is a Muslim minority).

I sometimes wonder how incompetent the governments there have been. Such a talented, industrious and skilled people should make for a much wealthier country than it is. Sadly the Philippines principal export remains its people. It is like Ireland in the last century, generating a world wide diaspora.

When people resent immigrants, it is worth noting that Filipinos are never mentioned, despite there being about 200 000 in the country. I think that this is because they integrate so well, and have a very high employment rate. The fact that Filipinos are the second largest group applying for British citizenship testifies to this (and the fact that opportunities back home are very limited). They want to integrate.

Ideally I would like the UK to train and retain enough of its own essential personnel to not need to recruit abroad, but decades of incompetence in personnel management in the UK means that we do not. It is much harder to recruit there now because of the Tory immigration limits on visas. I would take any number of Filipino Nurses over dubious arranged marrages from Mirapur or family reunification from MENA.

Speaking as someone who has been living in the Philippines for a decade and runs a local business, I think I can say you are preaching to the choir, I could wax lyrical about the circumstances that are preventing high levels of employment and growth, but I like my visa thank you very much

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

An example of how you can be on the bleading edge of technology, and still lose out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35924858

We need companies and institutions not only to research, but have the mindset for long-term development of products.

See graphene also.

We might still do well out of graphene. It's very early days, and we're investing. The key is to ensure that British companies exploit any new uses for such new materials, and not mindlessly hand them over to foreign competitors because we can't be bothered or can't get investment.

It also requires universities being willing to spin off companies, or even companies doing the same when the new tech is not core.

Jonathan

kle4 said:

All of which is a long winded way of saying working for positive change is a nice dream, but the system seems designed against permitting it, hence why the debate talks back on the less inspiring but more realistic 'get out and take the risk' or 'accept the bad with the good and maybe, somehow but no promises, it can be made better but probably not'

Disagree. Politics has solved far more difficult problems. Not only can the EU change, it will change. The question is do we want to be part of that change and, if we do, how do we want to influence it.

As with most things in life, the challenge is not to give up before you start.

JackW

Missouri - DFM Research

Clinton 42 .. Trump 40

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/dfm-research-d-united-transportation-union-24188

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, trying to stop the EU empire-building is like trying to persuade a lion to be vegetarian.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, trying to stop the EU empire-building is like trying to persuade a lion to be vegetarian.

Nope. You're just defeatist. The EU is made up of people, not lions.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, it's made up of bureaucrats.

As it says in the Art of War (I paraphrase) - if you cannot win, retreat.

Quintus Fabius Cunctator refused to engage Hannibal in combat (until he was forced to rescue Minucius Rufus), and thereby saved Rome.

Brown threw away a bucketload of vetoes. Cameron's renegotiation was a pathetic failure. We've lost significant bargaining power, (not to mention Blair throwing away half the rebate).

Ever closer integration is foolish for the UK but also for the EU. The eurozone is a ridiculous concept and a worse reality.

Edited extra bit: I meant Quintus Fabius Maximus, nicknamed The Cunctator (the Delayer), of course. Bit sleepy. Unused to getting up at 5am.

rcs1000

I must admit, and I've said this many times before, that I think the whole 'trade deals with other countries' argument is a little bit of a red herring, relative to the sovereignty and cost issues.

Why?

Because in all probability we'll be signing almost identical deals outside the the EU to the ones signed by the EU. Look at the list of EFTA free trade deals compared to the EU... there's basically one difference - EFTA has a deal with the GCC. It is otherwise identical.

I think it also rests on a fallacy: this idea that there are a bunch of nations who love free trade who are desperate to get into bed with the UK.

It's worth remembering that the Trans Pacific Partnership is also a worse deal for its members than the TTIP, for two reasons. Firstly, the ISDS tribunals (you know, the ones that over-rule national sovereignty) are held in secret. Secondly, the TPP requires that signatories keep their intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.

If we left the EU, we would probably want to keep most of the deals that EFTA/the EU signed with other countries. So, in all probability, leaving the EU would have minimal impact on trade deals with the rest of the world.

kle4

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

All of which is a long winded way of saying working for positive change is a nice dream, but the system seems designed against permitting it, hence why the debate talks back on the less inspiring but more realistic 'get out and take the risk' or 'accept the bad with the good and maybe, somehow but no promises, it can be made better but probably not'

Disagree. Politics has solved far more difficult problems. Not only can the EU change, it will change. The question is do we want to be part of that change and, if we do, how do we want to influence it.

As with most things in life, the challenge is not to give up before you start.

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I presume that has been tried in the decades since its founding. If it is working, it is not apparent to me given the rigid, inflexible nature of the institution and automatic implication any raising of concerns is being in essence a spoilsport.

It's not giving up before you start. It's giving up after decades of seeing where it is heading and seeing if that is where you want you end up.

And ultimately if the destination is not appealing to people, offering to touch up the paint job on the train of progress rather than change direction is not much of an offer. That is fundamentally my biggest problem with whole thing - by and large we would like things to go no further or even roll back abit. Some people are fully supportive of going further, but not as many. In much of the rest of the EU it seems the opposite is the case.

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, trying to stop the EU empire-building is like trying to persuade a lion to be vegetarian.

The EU will do what is in its own interests. As with any organisation they want more power, and that will only stop when enough members inside shout 'Enough!'.

But it requires the members to voice such opinions. Until then, they will continue to grab power. As many (most?) of us would in their situation.

We're not at that stage yet, and Cameron's negotiation does not offer enough certainty that the power-grab is not going to continue. Others may differ.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, it's made up of bureaucrats.

As it says in the Art of War (I paraphrase) - if you cannot win, retreat.

Quintus Fabius Cunctator refused to engage Hannibal in combat (until he was forced to rescue Minucius Rufus), and thereby saved Rome.

Brown threw away a bucketload of vetoes. Cameron's renegotiation was a pathetic failure. We've lost significant bargaining power, (not to mention Blair throwing away half the rebate).

Ever closer integration is foolish for the UK but also for the EU. The eurozone is a ridiculous concept and a worse reality.

Edited extra bit: I meant Quintus Fabius Maximus, nicknamed The Cunctator (the Delayer), of course. Bit sleepy. Unused to getting up at 5am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4rQDyRCZtg

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

The problem is that the EU is conspicuously not interested in reform, is irredeemably federalist, and rapidly becoming an economic backwater (9% GDP growth in the last 10 years, half that of America, about a quarter of South America and around a 10th of that of China)

I think that you do need to be careful comparing percentage growth rates as these can be very misleading (Sierra Leone had 34% GNP growth in one recent year!). In terms of our exports there is more extra income in a country with a 1% GDP growth and per Capita GDP of €40 000 than there is in a country with GDP growth of 5% and per capita GDP of €4 000, if populations are equal. The former being on average €400 per capita richer and the latter €200.

We do need to also consider the absolute size of an economy for trade and whether it is interested in our products and open to them. Both China and India have massive non-tariff barriers against us.

While the EU GDP has been rather sluggish since 2008, the growth rates since our entry in 1974 or the creation of the euro in 1990 have been much more respectable.

Plato_Says

Well said.

kle4 said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

All of which is a long winded way of saying working for positive change is a nice dream, but the system seems designed against permitting it, hence why the debate talks back on the less inspiring but more realistic 'get out and take the risk' or 'accept the bad with the good and maybe, somehow but no promises, it can be made better but probably not'

Disagree. Politics has solved far more difficult problems. Not only can the EU change, it will change. The question is do we want to be part of that change and, if we do, how do we want to influence it.

As with most things in life, the challenge is not to give up before you start.

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I presume that has been tried in the decades since its founding. If it is working, it is not apparent to me given the rigid, inflexible nature of the institution and automatic implication any raising of concerns is being in essence a spoilsport.

It's not giving up before you start. It's giving up after decades of seeing where it is heading and seeing if that is where you want you end up.

And ultimately if the destination is not appealing to people, offering to touch up the paint job on the train of progress rather than change direction is not much of an offer. That is fundamentally my biggest problem with whole thing - by and large we would like things to go no further or even roll back abit. Some people are fully supportive of going further, but not as many. In much of the rest of the EU it seems the opposite is the case.

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, worth pointing out that Sir Robin, unlike the skewered fellows, does actually survive...

Mr. Jessop, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses on Livy), a confederation can be, at most, 4-6 states, because any more than that and the individual states have little influence and power accrues to the confederation, diminishing rather than enhancing the power of the states themselves.

Co-operation between states becomes subordination to the confederacy.

kle4

I will confess though that I personally have given up on the EU being able to reform, even if politicians claim they are still trying. I was a remainer for a long time as the risks were such I figured sucking it up and working within thevEU was the least worst option. But I was worn down over time, and now the risks do not frighten so, though apprehension remains

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, worth pointing out that Sir Robin, unlike the skewered fellows, does actually survive...

Mr. Jessop, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses on Livy), a confederation can be, at most, 4-6 states, because any more than that and the individual states have little influence and power accrues to the confederation, diminishing rather than enhancing the power of the states themselves.

Co-operation between states becomes subordination to the confederacy.

Point of order! Sir Robin does die in the film, unable to answer the question at the gorge and being flung into it.

Casino_Royale

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsox, he survives the encounter with the giant, though.

Also, Quintus Fabius Maximus' avoidance tactics were derided by the Romans as cowardice at the time. Later, they were rightly grateful to his intelligent manoeuvring.

Jonathan

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

kle4

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

That's what they've voted for, why should one feel sorry for them if things turn out poorly as a result? (Not that it is guaranteed anyone else would have done better of course)

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, trying to stop the EU empire-building is like trying to persuade a lion to be vegetarian.

How does it compare to talking all four legs off an Arcturan Megadonkey?

Plato_Says

Chrisg0000 once of this parish does some great video nuggets

Just 16 years after being rescued from the nazi tyranny, France vetoes UK application to join EU.. #VoteLeave https://t.co/HBOswgLY70

When a #Labour leader spoke for UK (clip is in black & white!)

EU means:end of a thousand years of British history https://t.co/4CqdHODBEy

The PM who took us in...
'Don't worry our national interests will never be overridden by EU'
#Voteleave https://t.co/VBQkIvh5Yf

Morris_Dancer

Mr. D, I prefer adding limbs to creatures rather than removing them. Behold the Delphic glory of the octo-lemur!

Casino_Royale

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

That's what they've voted for, why should one feel sorry for them if things turn out poorly as a result? (Not that it is guaranteed anyone else would have done better of course)

30%-40% of them have but, yes, I take that point: I'm commenting from the point of view of someone on the centre-right who'd very much want them out-of-office if I lived in Wales.

It seems the Welsh devolution settlement (and its electoral system) has been very effective in locking Labour into permanent power in Wales, in a way it never really did in Scotland.

The trouble is the fractured opposition really helps Labour. Every time.

Innocent_Abroad

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

I am sure they want your sympathy.

kle4

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

if we were to remain, which personally I think would be taken ineurope as implicit support for the long term intent of more integration, that might be the best option, not that I want it to happen. The continued problem though is the pretence in this country by done that a remain vote is not implicit endorsement of more integration, so we'll just continue to drag our heels and moan, upsetting the others. It's an unhealthy situation really.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, he survives the encounter with the giant, though.

Also, Quintus Fabius Maximus' avoidance tactics were derided by the Romans as cowardice at the time. Later, they were rightly grateful to his intelligent manoeuvring.

A hiding like Cannae can convince even the skeptical no doubt.

Good day all.

Alistair

JackW said:

Missouri - DFM Research

Clinton 42 .. Trump 40

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/dfm-research-d-united-transportation-union-24188

OK, I think Trump is going to lose but Dems taking Missouri is a step too far in terms of believability

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

The problem is that the EU is conspicuously not interested in reform, is irredeemably federalist, and rapidly becoming an economic backwater (9% GDP growth in the last 10 years, half that of America, about a quarter of South America and around a 10th of that of China)

I think that you do need to be careful comparing percentage growth rates as these can be very misleading (Sierra Leone had 34% GNP growth in one recent year!). In terms of our exports there is more extra income in a country with a 1% GDP growth and per Capita GDP of €40 000 than there is in a country with GDP growth of 5% and per capita GDP of €4 000, if populations are equal. The former being on average €400 per capita richer and the latter €200.

We do need to also consider the absolute size of an economy for trade and whether it is interested in our products and open to them. Both China and India have massive non-tariff barriers against us.

While the EU GDP has been rather sluggish since 2008, the growth rates since our entry in 1974 or the creation of the euro in 1990 have been much more respectable.

I'm rather suspicious of growth figures, particularly in developing countries. I doubt China's GDP figures in recent quarters are quite accurate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/chinese-economy

Indigo

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

What that amounts to is if we do what the EU wants us to do, they will agree with us doing it, not exactly a revelation.

Plato_Says

Never seen this before - Heath meets an angry lady

The day Edward Heath took us into the EU without a referendum...
#VoteLeave https://t.co/woJTD9X5cc

Casino_Royale

Plato_Says said:

Never seen this before - Heath meets an angry lady

The day Edward Heath took us into the EU without a referendum...
#VoteLeave https://t.co/woJTD9X5cc

Heroic woman.

Wanderer

Alistair said:

JackW said:

Missouri - DFM Research

Clinton 42 .. Trump 40

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/dfm-research-d-united-transportation-union-24188

OK, I think Trump is going to lose but Dems taking Missouri is a step too far in terms of believability

Are you still expecting Trump to be the candidate?

Charles

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

Jonathan

Indigo said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

What that amounts to is if we do what the EU wants us to do, they will agree with us doing it, not exactly a revelation.

No it doesn't.

david_herdson

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

The easiest solution would be to amend the voting system to one that uses the benefits of AV.

No, hang on, carried away there.

What I meant was change it to proper AMS such as Scotland has: an equal number of constituency and list seats - whether that be 30 of each, keeping the 60 in total, or 40 of each, so keeping the current constituency total. I was going to project what the current polls would look like under that system last night but didn't have time to work it through.

The best chance to make the change was missed when the Assembly gained greater powers (and would have been both to the Coalition's benefit and to the Lib Dems' preferences re voting systems), so that's not an explanation for missing the opportunity.

Wanderer

On topic, I'm wondering how well organized UKIP is in Wales. There does seem to be an opportunity for them.

Jonathan

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Wanderer, there were postings here a few weeks ago that the party could do well but infighting, especially Hamilton versus Farage, could derail things.

watford30

Indigo said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

What that amounts to is if we do what the EU wants us to do, they will agree with us doing it, not exactly a revelation.

The problem is to first change the supine mentality held by UK politicians with regards to the EU. Witness Cameron cock-a-hoop at returning with his bag of magic beans recently; a meagre reward, but probably fair relative to his lazy attempts at doing as little as he can get away with. And Osborne happy to bend over and take the rebate hit, though so many were in denial.

The Civil Service will do nothing that might upset the apple cart either, as the career structure of many is so firmly welded to working within that Brussels and Strasbourg.

Charles

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Casino_Royale

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

The easiest solution would be to amend the voting system to one that uses the benefits of AV.

No, hang on, carried away there.

What I meant was change it to proper AMS such as Scotland has: an equal number of constituency and list seats - whether that be 30 of each, keeping the 60 in total, or 40 of each, so keeping the current constituency total. I was going to project what the current polls would look like under that system last night but didn't have time to work it through.

The best chance to make the change was missed when the Assembly gained greater powers (and would have been both to the Coalition's benefit and to the Lib Dems' preferences re voting systems), so that's not an explanation for missing the opportunity.

Interesting idea. Thanks.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

The problem is that the EU is conspicuously not interested in reform, is irredeemably federalist, and rapidly becoming an economic backwater (9% GDP growth in the last 10 years, half that of America, about a quarter of South America and around a 10th of that of China)

I think that you do need to be careful comparing percentage growth rates as these can be very misleading

I'm rather suspicious of growth figures, particularly in developing countries. I doubt China's GDP figures in recent quarters are quite accurate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/chinese-economy

Chinas figures are very dodgy indeed. I am very suspicious of the sort of stimulus packages that China continues with. Take the current steel glut for example and wonder why Chinas biggest producer is planning to increase production of steel by 20% this year despite there being no market for it:

http://fortune.com/2016/03/31/chinas-biggest-steel-maker-will-boost-output-despite-glut/

Chinas debts have been ballooning and a lot of these companies are very highly leveraged. We shall see soon if they are "too big to fail". To me it looks as if the Chinese economy has run off the cliff and is flapping its arms vigorously. All capitalist economies go into recession in time. I am very Bearish over China at present, though possibly after half of the Chinese steel industry has gone bankrupt growth will resume.

david_herdson

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

One other alternative would be for the Tories and UKIP to have a laugh and nominate Plaid to lead the Assembly.

Fact is, while Plaid is so pro-Labour (which by being virulently anti-Tory and even more virulently anti-UKIP, it is by default), Labour is in the box seat even when performing poorly.

But the long-term solution has to be to smash Labour in the valleys. That's not as daft as it sounds. The more Labour becomes the party of Islington dinner parties and Cardiff thinking middle classes, the more it moves away from men hewn from Wales' black rock.

RoyalBlue

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

One other alternative would be for the Tories and UKIP to have a laugh and nominate Plaid to lead the Assembly.

Fact is, while Plaid is so pro-Labour (which by being virulently anti-Tory and even more virulently anti-UKIP, it is by default), Labour is in the box seat even when performing poorly.

But the long-term solution has to be to smash Labour in the valleys. That's not as daft as it sounds. The more Labour becomes the party of Islington dinner parties and Cardiff thinking middle classes, the more it moves away from men hewn from Wales' black rock.

Plaid's decision to support Labour has doomed their chances of becoming Wales' second party.

rcs1000

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

This to me is the crux: our legal and political systems are so different, we'll always be unhappy members of the club. Our membership is bad for us, and bad for the rest of the EU.

Jonathan

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

The single market has flaws. It works for the rich, the highly skilled and those able to travel. It doesn't work so well for everyone else.

It is a perfectly valid human desire to live and work in your country of birth. And there will always be people who are not skilled, but need to earn a living. Or those who have to stay put for other reasons.

The single market needs to work for them too.

Completely agree. The EU as a whole is a long way from being perfect. But, on balance, for me having the four freedoms is better than not having them. That does not mean the UK should not be working very hard to make the EU better than it is.

The problem is that the EU is conspicuously not interested in reform, is irredeemably federalist, and rapidly becoming an economic backwater (9% GDP growth in the last 10 years, half that of America, about a quarter of South America and around a 10th of that of China)

I think that you do need to be careful comparing percentage growth rates as these can be very misleading (Sierra Leone had 34% GNP growth in one recent year!). In terms of our exports there is more extra income in a country with a 1% GDP growth and per Capita GDP of €40 000 than there is in a country with GDP growth of 5% and per capita GDP of €4 000, if populations are equal. The former being on average €400 per capita richer and the latter €200.

We do need to also consider the absolute size of an economy for trade and whether it is interested in our products and open to them. Both China and India have massive non-tariff barriers against us.

While the EU GDP has been rather sluggish since 2008, the growth rates since our entry in 1974 or the creation of the euro in 1990 have been much more respectable.

I'm rather suspicious of growth figures, particularly in developing countries. I doubt China's GDP figures in recent quarters are quite accurate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/chinese-economy

I prefer to look at job creation, and the surprising fact is that the Eurozone has generated a lot more jobs than the US has since its inception.

Casino_Royale

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

One other alternative would be for the Tories and UKIP to have a laugh and nominate Plaid to lead the Assembly.

Fact is, while Plaid is so pro-Labour (which by being virulently anti-Tory and even more virulently anti-UKIP, it is by default), Labour is in the box seat even when performing poorly.

But the long-term solution has to be to smash Labour in the valleys. That's not as daft as it sounds. The more Labour becomes the party of Islington dinner parties and Cardiff thinking middle classes, the more it moves away from men hewn from Wales' black rock.

Yes, I think that's correct.

Sean Fear has often pointed out on here that Wales is (rather slowly) trending away from Labour in the long-term, but the legacy of coal-mining helps them greatly in the valleys.

I can't see the valleys switching to Tory, though. Some parts of rural Welsh speaking Wales will always vote Plaid.

Only way I can see a different leadership is for the Tories to do very well in picking up suburban/middle-class seats around Cardiff/Swansea/Newport and the English border, whilst UKIP do very well in the valleys.

The two then cooperate to govern.

But not betting on it for a while to come.

Philip_Thompson

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.

YBarddCwsc

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

I do feel sorry for the Welsh.

I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?

They've been leading it since 1999.

I am sure they want your sympathy.

Actually, the Welsh would have been grateful if Labour had not gerrymandered the electoral system to produce endless Labour Governments.

Here is a small example of the endpoint of such gerrymandering.

The Scottish Government buy an underperforming airport (Prestwick). Cost £ 1.

The Welsh Government buy an underperforming airport (Cardiff). Cost 52 million.

Despite it originally appearing that the Welsh Government bought the airport off a Spanish company, it now appears that the true owners of the airport were South Wales businessmen close to Labour.

That alone is enough to tell you that the Scots are better off without a Labour Government in Holyrood.

And the Welsh need to follow suit, otherwise the country will end up like Sicily.

Casino_Royale

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.

Indeed. For me, it's an open and shut case.

foxinsoxuk

@DH

An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)

I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.

Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!

It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.

Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.

DavidL

Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.

It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.

CD13

Jonathan,

Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.

Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.

The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.

I am looking forward to Jonathan and his friends trying to sell this on the doorstep, should be a hoot.

Jonathan

CD13 said:

Jonathan,

Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.

Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.

The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.

Although all those are commodity exporting countries, so their GDP is about to sink quite significantly. In US Dollar terms most of them are about to be rebased downwards significantly, while the Euro has just rallied 10%, so you'll see the opposite effect.

foxinsoxuk

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.

...

Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.

Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.

FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.

Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.

That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.

Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.

Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.

We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.

All 3 of those countries export mainly agricultural products and commodities. I doubt that there will be much of a market for Australian iron ore in Britain...

The Australasians see their future export markets in Asia. All NZ lamb is halal for example to make sales to the middle east easier. China is the destination for dairy and beef exports, as well as Australian ore.

We cannot recreate the Empire a century on. Those countries have moved on.