That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
He does not claim significant expenses (famously, one ink cartridge in a year - makes you wonder why he wasn't doing more printing) and he does not seem to be building up for a retirement package over and above what will be a reasonable pension for his work as an MP.
Just for the record, Corbyn has himself debunked the "one ink cartridge in a quarter" (not a year, I think) story - he says that it's because he didn't get round to claiming normal expenses until the next quarter. I imagine his actual expenses are unremarkable, though - he's certainly not interested in piling up cash.
It's a shame for the taxpayer, that you never followed his example.
It's worth noting that the current Icelandic Prime Minister leads a strongly Eurosceptic government. It's entirely possible that any fresh elections may result in a new government that resumed negotiations for EU accession.
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
It's quite a slug of the UK economy for all its "that's about it".
Edit: "quite a slug" = 29% of exports (not all to the EU, obvs).
Is even half of it to the EU, or is the bulk of it with the USA, Singapore etc ?
Not sure but don't forget also that there will also be EU financial services firms passported into the UK employing Brits which presumably would count as a UK import/EU export.
Again, I'm happy to be in the EEA and over time leverage our humongous trade deficit into getting a few concessions on free movement while we continue to rebalance our economy away from EU trade. It would also be pretty awful for them to not include services, Richard. As you can see they increased their services exports by 7.4%!
You may be happy to retain free movement, but a very large proportion, perhaps a majority, of those voting to leave see 'control of our borders' as the most important reason for leaving.
This is the fundamental incoherence of the Leave case, and it can't just be swept under the carpet. Are we prepared to accept the economic hit on financial and other business services which is implicit in the principal political reason for leaving, or not?
It is not incoherent it is democracy. If you're in a shop that is on fire you may want to leave and go home, I may want to leave and go to another shop but remaining where you are is the incoherent choice. There is no need for unanimity on the leave side, democracy can sort that out.
I'm not asking for unanimity, I'm asking for honesty in the trade-offs. At the moment, people I speak to are astonished to discover that we might well still retain freedom of movement if we leave the EU. (They are also astonished to hear that we'd still be subject to the European Court of Human Rights.)
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
But comparing 2016 with 2012 is silly: everyone knows governments ALWAYS do worse in the second year of the electoral cycle than in the first.
The relevant measure is going to be the national shares of the vote, compared to 2011 (the comparative first year of the last electoral cycle). Labour came 1% behind the Tories that year. If Corbyn can match or possibly even exceed that (which I would've thought impossible a few weeks ago, but now seems a bit more of a prospect) then he'll have had a reasonable night.
That is a sensible comment!
I think that's right. But expectations debates aside, we're fairly clear that the main parties are roughly tied in the polls with maybe a slight Tory lead; that usually the governing party has started to decline; that there are special factors at the moment, with first Corbyn and MDonald and now most of the Cabinet having a torrid time. Unless the results are quite extraordinary (someone making 500 gains or the like), I expect to say hmm and move on.
Again, I'm happy to be in the EEA and over time leverage our humongous trade deficit into getting a few concessions on free movement while we continue to rebalance our economy away from EU trade. It would also be pretty awful for them to not include services, Richard. As you can see they increased their services exports by 7.4%!
You may be happy to retain free movement, but a very large proportion, perhaps a majority, of those voting to leave see 'control of our borders' as the most important reason for leaving.
This is the fundamental incoherence of the Leave case, and it can't just be swept under the carpet. Are we prepared to accept the economic hit on financial and other business services which is implicit in the principal political reason for leaving, or not?
It is not incoherent it is democracy. If you're in a shop that is on fire you may want to leave and go home, I may want to leave and go to another shop but remaining where you are is the incoherent choice. There is no need for unanimity on the leave side, democracy can sort that out.
I'm not asking for unanimity, I'm asking for honesty in the trade-offs. At the moment, people I speak to are astonished to discover that we might well still retain freedom of movement if we leave the EU. (They are also astonished to hear that we'd still be subject to the European Court of Human Rights.)
That is because you are being dishonest. You are trying to say it will be just the same only worse.
If the population want to control borders, its going to be a brave politician that goes for an EEA solution. If we go fully out there are sure to be other issues that we have rehearsed here many times, but we will not have to deal with the EHCR or freedom of movement, until the people of the country chose to elect a government that is in favour of such.
So such a supposed liberal you appear implacably opposed to the people of this country having a true say in their future outside the EU. The big irony is that your glorous leader said not three years ago that the UK would be fine outside the EU, and now all of a sudden it is going to be a complete disaster.
I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.
Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State.
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
It's hardly 'minutiae'! It's the single most important issue.
@JosiasJessop On a per head basis I'd guess our carbon emmissions are around the same as in 1850
You might well be right. I need to ponder this more: it might lead me to changing my mind on a few things ...
Although back in the 1850s Britain made most of what we consumed (I guess - no figures to hand). Now we import a large amount of embodied carbon.
Yes - also, don't forget the overwhelming majority of that carbon would come from just five major urban centres in 1850 - Liverpool, Manchester, London, Birmingham and Merthyr Tydfil. There would still have been parts of rural Cumberland (for example) that had changed very little in 200 years. It's much more evenly spread now.
He does not claim significant expenses (famously, one ink cartridge in a year - makes you wonder why he wasn't doing more printing) and he does not seem to be building up for a retirement package over and above what will be a reasonable pension for his work as an MP.
Just for the record, Corbyn has himself debunked the "one ink cartridge in a quarter" (not a year, I think) story - he says that it's because he didn't get round to claiming normal expenses until the next quarter. I imagine his actual expenses are unremarkable, though - he's certainly not interested in piling up cash.
It's a shame for the taxpayer, that you never followed his example.
Eh? I didn't pile up cash either - I rented a flat near Parliament and used the rental allowance to do it. When I lost, I left, none the richer. My office costs were unremarkable and the investigation into MPs reported I had no issues. What would you have done differently?
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
It's quite a slug of the UK economy for all its "that's about it".
Edit: "quite a slug" = 29% of exports (not all to the EU, obvs).
Exports of services to the EU: £89bn (4.8% of GDP) Exports of services to non-EU: £137bn (7.4% of GDP)
About a 60/40 ratio in favour of non-EU trade. Services trade with the EU is important, but it isn't the silver bullet to economic growth for us.
We run a trade surplus for services with the EU, that said (source).
Yes we do, I have the figures (I've just been writing a bunch of scripts to automatically scrap the ONS website for data and then sort it, it's slow going).
He does not claim significant expenses (famously, one ink cartridge in a year - makes you wonder why he wasn't doing more printing) and he does not seem to be building up for a retirement package over and above what will be a reasonable pension for his work as an MP.
Just for the record, Corbyn has himself debunked the "one ink cartridge in a quarter" (not a year, I think) story - he says that it's because he didn't get round to claiming normal expenses until the next quarter. I imagine his actual expenses are unremarkable, though - he's certainly not interested in piling up cash.
Thank you, that would explain it.
It seemed an extremely strange story at the time. But there you are, with Corbyn anything is possible (and I could actually believe that he would buy such things out of his own pocket).
The only MP I knew who actually did anything like that was Judy Mallaber, who underclaimed and paid part of the her team's wages out of her own pocket - she lives in a small cottage on the Derbyshire moors and said she didn't need the money. The Telegraph called her a "saint" (and nine others) among the sinners, but she lost the next election.
She's still living in the same cottage, I believe, doing work for various charities - says it's pleasant to be able to decide who she actually wants to help and how much time to give to it. Nice woman, personally frugal but never made a fuss about it - if it hadn't been for the investigation into expenses, none of us would have noticed.
@JosiasJessop On a per head basis I'd guess our carbon emmissions are around the same as in 1850
You might well be right. I need to ponder this more: it might lead me to changing my mind on a few things ...
Although back in the 1850s Britain made most of what we consumed (I guess - no figures to hand). Now we import a large amount of embodied carbon.
It seems like complete humbug to be honest. We used to produce lots of heavy industry stuff, now we import the same stuff, we don't actually consume less, in fact considerably more. All that happens now is that same polluting process takes place in a developing country with less strict standards and less efficient power generation, and a poor population that doesnt complain about the smoke and poisoned rivers because they are grateful for the money. Not only that we now have to pay to transport those heavy industry goods around the world in container ships burning vast amounts of bunker oil.
Yay for green taxes, exporting jobs and emissions to developing nations whilst increase the total amount of emissions made globally.
I see a few journalists are coming to the view that Jeremy Corbyn's office is getting it's act together with regards PR. Perhaps the rumour that Seamus Milne and Damian McBride are getting on like a house on fire is true. I certainly detect their hand in the Guardian/BBC going after the PM. I see the BBC are still showing shots of the PM's late father. This is just so disgusting.
I'm only a few pages into Dan Hannan's book, Vote to Leave, and already my blood pressure is rising. There is no way anyone in their right mind would join this organisation today
Polls close at 2 AM London time, exit poll numbers could start leaking 3 hours earlier. But since the winner is a bit assured the only thing that matters is the geographical distribution of the votes and the margin.
Trump could win CD-7 ( NW Wisconsin), CD-3 (Western Wisconsin), CD-1(Paul Ryan's seat on the Milwaukee-Chicago border) and CD-4 (Milwaukee centre). Kasich could win CD-2 (Madison, the state capital).
Don't forget, "could" doesn't mean "should" or "will".
That is because you are being dishonest. You are trying to say it will be just the same only worse.
If the population want to control borders, its going to be a brave politician that goes for an EEA solution. If we go fully out there are sure to be other issues that we have rehearsed here many times, but we will not have to deal with the EHCR or freedom of movement, until the people of the country chose to elect a government that is in favour of such.
So such a supposed liberal you appear implacably opposed to the people of this country having a true say in their future outside the EU.
Your childish insults are silly. I'm not 'opposed to the people of this country having a true say'. You seem to have forgotten that I'm a member of the party which is giving the people a say. I campaigned and made donations in order to get that say.
What's more, I'm the one who has argued against the EEA option in the event of a Leave result, precisely because it doesn't give Leave voters what they want. The dishonest ones are those who use 'control of our borders' as an argument to leave, whilst intending to retain it even if we do leave.
He does not claim significant expenses (famously, one ink cartridge in a year - makes you wonder why he wasn't doing more printing) and he does not seem to be building up for a retirement package over and above what will be a reasonable pension for his work as an MP.
Just for the record, Corbyn has himself debunked the "one ink cartridge in a quarter" (not a year, I think) story - he says that it's because he didn't get round to claiming normal expenses until the next quarter. I imagine his actual expenses are unremarkable, though - he's certainly not interested in piling up cash.
Thank you, that would explain it.
It seemed an extremely strange story at the time. But there you are, with Corbyn anything is possible (and I could actually believe that he would buy such things out of his own pocket).
The only MP I knew who actually did anything like that was Judy Mallaber, who underclaimed and paid part of the her team's wages out of her own pocket - she lives in a small cottage on the Derbyshire moors and said she didn't need the money. The Telegraph called her a "saint" (and nine others) among the sinners, but she lost the next election.
She's still living in the same cottage, I believe, doing work for various charities - says it's pleasant to be able to decide who she actually wants to help and how much time to give to it. Nice woman, personally frugal but never made a fuss about it - if it hadn't been for the investigation into expenses, none of us would have noticed.
You've got to admire somebody who practices what they preach in that way. If only the bosses of FTSE 100 companies had that attitude, the way Rothermere or Carnegie did.
Although from the little I know of him Nigel Mills seems a decent sort as well and not personally greedy.
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
The share of UK services exports going to the EU is declining, even though the UK is geographically close to many of the member states and closely economically integrated with them.
Some of the biggest opportunities for future growth of services exports revolve around the collapsing costs of communications technology, which renders geographical proximity less important.
Does it really make sense to mortgage our political independence and judicial and legal independence to try to wring a few more drops out of an already pretty dry rag? It's doubtful.
It makes much more sense to concentrate on getting into the fast growing markets for services in the rest of the world. The current obsession with the EU of our political class and civil service is a massive misallocation of resources.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
It's worth noting that the current Icelandic Prime Minister leads a strongly Eurosceptic government. It's entirely possible that any fresh elections may result in a new government that resumed negotiations for EU accession.
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
They never rest. The Farage's brakes thing was a rare slip up.
It's worth noting that the current Icelandic Prime Minister leads a strongly Eurosceptic government. It's entirely possible that any fresh elections may result in a new government that resumed negotiations for EU accession.
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
No it isn't. The population of Iceland are overwhelmingly Eurosceptic and the Opposition is very unlikely to want to court unpopularity by even suggesting negotiations might be reopened.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
I see a few journalists are coming to the view that Jeremy Corbyn's office is getting it's act together with regards PR. Perhaps the rumour that Seamus Milne and Damian McBride are getting on like a house on fire is true. I certainly detect their hand in the Guardian/BBC going after the PM. I see the BBC are still showing shots of the PM's late father. This is just so disgusting.
I'm only a few pages into Dan Hannan's book, Vote to Leave, and already my blood pressure is rising. There is no way anyone in their right mind would join this organisation today
Oh dear, McBride's up to his old tricks? Some people never learn. Still, it won't be long until he's forced to leave in disgrace. Again.
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
"improvements in the single market for services should allow us to..."
Well that's the problem. I'll believe it when I see it.
Your childish insults are silly. I'm not 'opposed to the people of this country having a true say'. You seem to have forgotten that I'm a member of the party which is giving the people a say. I campaigned and made donations in order to get that say.
Pish. You are a member of a party that gave people a say because it was worried enough people would vote for the kippers that it would lose the election if it didn't. You campaigned and donated to the Conservative Party because you are loyal member and would have done so even if it had not adopted the referendum policy.
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
The improvements have been 30 years in the making, I hope they are good.
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
It's hardly 'minutiae'! It's the single most important issue.
If ending free movement is the single most important issue to them then they should vote Leave as only Leave has a chance of ending free movement. Any other suggestion would be dishonest.
I am still trying to work out how this story in regards to Cameron is different / moved on from report in Guardian in 2012? Am I missing something? Other than the BBC going big on it, and obviously Corbyn can attack him, where as Ed was on dodgy ground.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
No but our access to their fast growing other regions is to some extend related to not being shackled to an organisation that imposes regulations and standards that might reduce our competitiveness in those markets, and has relatively little interest in signing a trade deal with those markets, but prevents us from doing so.
Your childish insults are silly. I'm not 'opposed to the people of this country having a true say'. You seem to have forgotten that I'm a member of the party which is giving the people a say. I campaigned and made donations in order to get that say.
Pish. You are a member of a party that gave people a say because it was worried enough people would vote for the kippers that it would lose the election if it didn't. You campaigned and donated to the Conservative Party because you are loyal member and would have done so even if it had not adopted the referendum policy.
Thank you, I'll accept that as the nearest I'll get to a gracious apology for you saying that I'm 'implacably opposed to the people of this country having a true say in their future outside the EU.'
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
It's worth noting that the current Icelandic Prime Minister leads a strongly Eurosceptic government. It's entirely possible that any fresh elections may result in a new government that resumed negotiations for EU accession.
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
There is pretty much no chance of that happening. EU membership is a dead issue in Iceland with little public support these days.
It's worth noting that the current Icelandic Prime Minister leads a strongly Eurosceptic government. It's entirely possible that any fresh elections may result in a new government that resumed negotiations for EU accession.
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
There is pretty much no chance of that happening. EU membership is a dead issue in Iceland with little public support these days.
There is very little support for EU membership in any of the EFTA/EEA countries.
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
It's hardly 'minutiae'! It's the single most important issue.
If ending free movement is the single most important issue to them then they should vote Leave as only Leave has a chance of ending free movement. Any other suggestion would be dishonest.
They should, but not if at the same time they are being reassured that there's little economic risk.
@JosiasJessop On a per head basis I'd guess our carbon emmissions are around the same as in 1850
You might well be right. I need to ponder this more: it might lead me to changing my mind on a few things ...
Although back in the 1850s Britain made most of what we consumed (I guess - no figures to hand). Now we import a large amount of embodied carbon.
Yes - also, don't forget the overwhelming majority of that carbon would come from just five major urban centres in 1850 - Liverpool, Manchester, London, Birmingham and Merthyr Tydfil. There would still have been parts of rural Cumberland (for example) that had changed very little in 200 years. It's much more evenly spread now.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it really the case that Merthyr Tydfil would have had more CO2 emissions than big industrial cities like Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield? Sounds very odd to me.
The figures show the only area in which our exports are growing with the EU is services, but our 5.7% increase in exports is matched by a 7.4% increase in imports, essentially wiping out any gain.
So any Brexit route involving signing up to the single market in goods but not fully in services would be, err, brave.
Which single market in services is this of which you speak ?
Financial services?
That about it isnt it, and not even all financial services. The Open Europe report a couple of year ago argued that there wasn't a single market in services worth the name.
It's quite a slug of the UK economy for all its "that's about it".
Edit: "quite a slug" = 29% of exports (not all to the EU, obvs).
Exports of services to the EU: £89bn (4.8% of GDP) Exports of services to non-EU: £137bn (7.4% of GDP)
About a 60/40 ratio in favour of non-EU trade. Services trade with the EU is important, but it isn't the silver bullet to economic growth for us.
We run a trade surplus for services with the EU, that said (source).
If I remember rightly we run a much bigger one with the rest of the world.
Yes we do, as @MaxPB has noted. The question was (something like): "there isn't a meaningful single market in services, is there?"
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth anaemic would be generous. Why stay in a political union with a low growth area when the EEA option gives us the best of both worlds. Having slightly less say in forming financial regulations and then not being able to oppose them in the QMV vote isn't going fundamentally change anything, but bringing trade competencies back to this country and retaking our WTO seat will help us in the medium to long term. It will also ensure that should the EU become overtly hostile towards us we are better prepared to deal with any trade issues.
While Leave voters are still more likely to say they will show up – 70 per cent say they are certain to vote if the referendum was held today – this represents a marked fall from last month when 79 per cent said they would be certain to vote.
The proportion of Remain voters certain to vote has also fallen to 61 per cent, a drop of 11 points. This means the topline voting intention shows an effectively even split of definite voters between Remain (49 per cent, +4) and Leave (48 per cent, -4)...
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
It's hardly 'minutiae'! It's the single most important issue.
If ending free movement is the single most important issue to them then they should vote Leave as only Leave has a chance of ending free movement. Any other suggestion would be dishonest.
They should, but not if at the same time they are being reassured that there's little economic risk.
They could honestly say "with less economic risk than electing a Labour government" given that a third of the population are prepared to take the bigger economic risk of voting Labour they should be quite relaxed about BrExit.
So you're speaking to people who are ignorant, what is that supposed to prove? Most people are ignorant of minutiae.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave. The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
It's hardly 'minutiae'! It's the single most important issue.
If ending free movement is the single most important issue to them then they should vote Leave as only Leave has a chance of ending free movement. Any other suggestion would be dishonest.
They should, but not if at the same time they are being reassured that there's little economic risk.
There is little economic risk either way. We'll be fine either way.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth anaemic would be generous. Why stay in a political union with a low growth area when the EEA option gives us the best of both worlds. Having slightly less say in forming financial regulations and then not being able to oppose them in the QMV vote isn't going fundamentally change anything, but bringing trade competencies back to this country and retaking our WTO seat will help us in the medium to long term. It will also ensure that should the EU become overtly hostile towards us we are better prepared to deal with any trade issues.
The single market for financial services is pretty good. We are able - as a small fund management firm - to sell to people across the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) under a common regulatory umbrella, and with no need for local representatives to provide regulatory cover. In Switzlerland we have to give up a third of our revenue to a local firm, who does little except satisfy the regulator.
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
@JosiasJessop On a per head basis I'd guess our carbon emmissions are around the same as in 1850
You might well be right. I need to ponder this more: it might lead me to changing my mind on a few things ...
Although back in the 1850s Britain made most of what we consumed (I guess - no figures to hand). Now we import a large amount of embodied carbon.
Yes - also, don't forget the overwhelming majority of that carbon would come from just five major urban centres in 1850 - Liverpool, Manchester, London, Birmingham and Merthyr Tydfil. There would still have been parts of rural Cumberland (for example) that had changed very little in 200 years. It's much more evenly spread now.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it really the case that Merthyr Tydfil would have had more CO2 emissions than big industrial cities like Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield? Sounds very odd to me.
Yes, because they were not big industrial cities at the time, although they were growing steadily. As late as 1860, nobody in those cities was more than about a mile and a half from green fields. Merthyr Tydfil, on the other hand, was producing something like 90% of the world's iron in its five great furnaces. Don't forget, it was actually much larger then than it is now, and home to a large chunk of the entire national heavy industry.
He does not claim significant expenses (famously, one ink cartridge in a year - makes you wonder why he wasn't doing more printing) and he does not seem to be building up for a retirement package over and above what will be a reasonable pension for his work as an MP.
Just for the record, Corbyn has himself debunked the "one ink cartridge in a quarter" (not a year, I think) story - he says that it's because he didn't get round to claiming normal expenses until the next quarter. I imagine his actual expenses are unremarkable, though - he's certainly not interested in piling up cash.
It's a shame for the taxpayer, that you never followed his example.
Eh? I didn't pile up cash either - I rented a flat near Parliament and used the rental allowance to do it. When I lost, I left, none the richer. My office costs were unremarkable and the investigation into MPs reported I had no issues. What would you have done differently?
Nick
Please take this as a genuine question rather than a personal attack.
Why did you sell up and bugger off to Islington so soon after losing your seat rather than live in the constituency which, I presume, you claimed to love so much when you were standing for election? Do you not think that this is one reason why the public are so cynical about MPs these days? Ex-MPs who stay living in their seats after leaving parliament sadly seem to be a rarity now.
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
Guardian - "But he does not answer on behalf of other members of his family."
When did you stop hitting your wife....the thing is with a question like that, how is he supposed to know? Do you know the personal finances of your brother, your uncle, your nephew?
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Which is why I'm happy with the EEA solution. I'm happy to accept EU product standards and make them work for us, and I also don't mind the state aid rules because, as a general rule, I don't like subsidies.
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
Guardian - "But he does not answer on behalf of other members of his family."
When did you stop hitting your wife....the thing is with a question like that, how is he supposed to know? Do you know the personal finances of your brother, your uncle, your nephew?
Exactly, it's an impossible question. I have no idea what my fathers investments are in, and nor should I.
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth anaemic would be generous. Why stay in a political union with a low growth area when the EEA option gives us the best of both worlds. Having slightly less say in forming financial regulations and then not being able to oppose them in the QMV vote isn't going fundamentally change anything, but bringing trade competencies back to this country and retaking our WTO seat will help us in the medium to long term. It will also ensure that should the EU become overtly hostile towards us we are better prepared to deal with any trade issues.
The single market for financial services is pretty good. We are able - as a small fund management firm - to sell to people across the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) under a common regulatory umbrella, and with no need for local representatives to provide regulatory cover. In Switzlerland we have to give up a third of our revenue to a local firm, who does little except satisfy the regulator.
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
I see so few downsides to being in the EEA. We aren't an EMU nation and we never will be which means our influence is minimal and will always be minimal. If David Cameron wanted to negotiate the fabled "associate membership" people were talking about before the whole thing started it would have looked a lot like the EEA with EUParl seats, QMV rights and the treaty veto. The first two are meaningless and the latter may also be meaningless given that the appetite for a new EU treaty is almost zero.
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
Guardian - "But he does not answer on behalf of other members of his family."
When did you stop hitting your wife....the thing is with a question like that, how is he supposed to know? Do you know the personal finances of your brother, your uncle, your nephew?
Exactly, it's an impossible question. I have no idea what my fathers investments are in, and nor should I.
But we know what the headline will be....Cameron refuses to answer if family are tax dodgers...
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
Yes it will still be a large market for many decades to come. But it will be a stagnant one and it is most unlikely that you are going to get a massive increase in market share, year after year, to offset that.
In another 20 years, the share of our services exports going to the EU will probably be below 30%.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
In which case, you need then to answer why the Swiss-China deal basically excludes Swiss firms from the Chinese financial services market, and does practucally nothing liberalise services trade between the two.
I shall see if I can dig out data on services sales as a percentage of GDP. Although - to be fair - I'm not sure where I'd get that data (UBS or GS are probably the best bet...)
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
Now you really have got me puzzled.
The EU excluding the UK accounts for around 20% of world GDP. If you don't want a trade deal with the USA (22% of world GDP), and think we don't need one with China (13% of world GDP), where do you think the extra growth from being able to do our own trade deals outside the EU is supposed to come from?
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Which is why I'm happy with the EEA solution. I'm happy to accept EU product standards and make them work for us, and I also don't mind the state aid rules because, as a general rule, I don't like subsidies.
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
But which countries do you think we will do a better job exporting to because of our exit from the EU?
My view is that we don't have an export problem. We have a consumer debt problem that leads to a current account deficit. It also skews the banking sector: it is more profitable (currently) to lend to over-indebted consumers than to small businesses.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
In which case, you need then to answer why the Swiss-China deal basically excludes Swiss firms from the Chinese financial services market, and does practucally nothing liberalise services trade between the two.
I shall see if I can dig out data on services sales as a percentage of GDP. Although - to be fair - I'm not sure where I'd get that data (UBS or GS are probably the best bet...)
I just scraped UK BoP data from the ONS, it's all in there.
Please take this as a genuine question rather than a personal attack.
Why did you sell up and bugger off to Islington so soon after losing your seat rather than live in the constituency which, I presume, you claimed to love so much when you were standing for election? Do you not think that this is one reason why the public are so cynical about MPs these days? Ex-MPs who stay living in their seats after leaving parliament sadly seem to be a rarity now.
I needed a job, and was offered one in London. I didn't own my home, and couldn't have afforded to go on paying rent there. There aren't many jobs in Broxtowe (or even Nottingham or elsewhere) for 60-year-old ex-MPs who've been out of their previous line of work for 13 years. I stayed for a few months while job-hunting in all directions, but was close to running into debt, so when I got an offer I took it with alacrity.
I don't think anyone took it as desertion - they could see I needed to go where I could find work. If I'd been about to retire that would have been different, of course.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
He's talking about legal interests, not beneficial ones.
The great thing about trusts, for those who benefit from them, is that there is no requirement to register or report beneficial interests. Indeed there's not even a requirement to know that you've got any beneficial interests. Oh, did Daddy set up a 100 million pound trust for me in the British Virgin islands? Oh, I wouldn't know. And if I did, it would be a private matter.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else who holds important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
Mossack and Fonseca havent signed the Official Secrets Act.
And why aren't any newspapers looking at the British end of the Mossack Fonseca operation, run by Emmanuel Cohen? He's the chairman of Mossack Fonseca (UK) Ltd.
I think anyone hoping for a dramatic boost to UK growth from the 'completion of the single market in services' is on a hiding to nothing.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
Non-sequitur. It's still a large market right on our doorstep (excluding the UK, it accounts for around 20% of world GDP), and improvements in the single market for services should allow us to grab a larger chunk of it, given that we have a competitive advantage in services. That is not dependent on it growing faster than other regions.
Yes it will still be a large market for many decades to come. But it will be a stagnant one and it is most unlikely that you are going to get a massive increase in market share, year after year, to offset that.
In another 20 years, the share of our services exports going to the EU will probably be below 30%.
As anyone who has been in any kind of business knows, it is much easier to profit out of a growing market than a stagnant or contracting one.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
In which case, you need then to answer why the Swiss-China deal basically excludes Swiss firms from the Chinese financial services market, and does practucally nothing liberalise services trade between the two.
I shall see if I can dig out data on services sales as a percentage of GDP. Although - to be fair - I'm not sure where I'd get that data (UBS or GS are probably the best bet...)
I just scraped UK BoP data from the ONS, it's all in there.
I was interested in comparing them with other countries: so, to see the quantity of services exports as a percentage of GDP on a like-for-like basis.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Which is why I'm happy with the EEA solution. I'm happy to accept EU product standards and make them work for us, and I also don't mind the state aid rules because, as a general rule, I don't like subsidies.
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
But which countries do you think we will do a better job exporting to because of our exit from the EU?
My view is that we don't have an export problem. We have a consumer debt problem that leads to a current account deficit. It also skews the banking sector: it is more profitable (currently) to lend to over-indebted consumers than to small businesses.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
He's talking about legal interests, not beneficial ones.
The great thing about trusts, for those who benefit from them, is that there is no requirement to register or report beneficial interests. Indeed there's not even a requirement to know that you've got any beneficial interests. Oh, did Daddy set up a 100 million pound trust for me in the British Virgin islands? Oh, I wouldn't know. And if I did, it would be a private matter.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
He's talking about legal interests, not beneficial ones.
The great thing about trusts, for those who benefit from them, is that there is no requirement to register or report beneficial interests. Indeed there's not even a requirement to know that you've got any beneficial interests. Oh, did Daddy set up a 100 million pound trust for me in the British Virgin islands? Oh, I wouldn't know. And if I did, it would be a private matter.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
"If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is."
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
In which case, you need then to answer why the Swiss-China deal basically excludes Swiss firms from the Chinese financial services market, and does practucally nothing liberalise services trade between the two.
I shall see if I can dig out data on services sales as a percentage of GDP. Although - to be fair - I'm not sure where I'd get that data (UBS or GS are probably the best bet...)
I just scraped UK BoP data from the ONS, it's all in there.
I was interested in comparing them with other countries: so, to see the quantity of services exports as a percentage of GDP on a like-for-like basis.
I've put in a data request, lets see if it comes back with a "fuck off and do the leg work yourself" note.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
If it's secret, and he tells you it doesn't exist, how would you know if he was lying. If you thought he was lying where would you look to check. If you knew where to look how would you get access to the relevant information. Even if he told you, how would you know that was everything.
The problem with secrets is they are secret, and so you won't know if they exist or not. You will just drive yourself into a spin looking for movements in the shadows that probably aren't there.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Which is why I'm happy with the EEA solution. I'm happy to accept EU product standards and make them work for us, and I also don't mind the state aid rules because, as a general rule, I don't like subsidies.
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
To be fair, UK services exports to China have more than doubled since 2007, albeit from a low base.
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth abetter prepared to deal with any trade issues.
The single market for financial services is pretty good. We are able - as a small fund management firm - to sell to people across the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) under a common regulatory umbrella, and with no need for local representatives to provide regulatory cover. In Switzlerland we have to give up a third of our revenue to a local firm, who does little except satisfy the regulator.
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
I see so few downsides to being in the EEA. We aren't an EMU nation and we never will be which means our influence is minimal and will always be minimal. If David Cameron wanted to negotiate the fabled "associate membership" people were talking about before the whole thing started it would have looked a lot like the EEA with EUParl seats, QMV rights and the treaty veto. The first two are meaningless and the latter may also be meaningless given that the appetite for a new EU treaty is almost zero.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Please take this as a genuine question rather than a personal attack.
Why did you sell up and bugger off to Islington so soon after losing your seat rather than live in the constituency which, I presume, you claimed to love so much when you were standing for election? Do you not think that this is one reason why the public are so cynical about MPs these days? Ex-MPs who stay living in their seats after leaving parliament sadly seem to be a rarity now.
I needed a job, and was offered one in London. I didn't own my home, and couldn't have afforded to go on paying rent there. There aren't many jobs in Broxtowe (or even Nottingham or elsewhere) for 60-year-old ex-MPs who've been out of their previous line of work for 13 years. I stayed for a few months while job-hunting in all directions, but was close to running into debt, so when I got an offer I took it with alacrity.
I don't think anyone took it as desertion - they could see I needed to go where I could find work. If I'd been about to retire that would have been different, of course.
Thank you for the reply. It's sad you weren't able to make a living without moving back to London though it's a sign of the times I guess. I grew up in the seat next door to yours (Ashfield), and our MP in the 80s Frank Haynes still lived in our village after he retired, indeed he stayed in Ashfield until he died despite being a Londoner originally. I'm not a Labour voter but I always thought he set a good example which too few MPs follow today (sometimes, I accept, because they can't).
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
Which is why I'm happy with the EEA solution. I'm happy to accept EU product standards and make them work for us, and I also don't mind the state aid rules because, as a general rule, I don't like subsidies.
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
But which countries do you think we will do a better job exporting to because of our exit from the EU?
My view is that we don't have an export problem. We have a consumer debt problem that leads to a current account deficit. It also skews the banking sector: it is more profitable (currently) to lend to over-indebted consumers than to small businesses.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth abetter prepared to deal with any trade issues.
The single market for financial services is pretty good. We are able - as a small fund management firm - to sell to people across the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) under a common regulatory umbrella, and with no need for local representatives to provide regulatory cover. In Switzlerland we have to give up a third of our revenue to a local firm, who does little except satisfy the regulator.
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
I see so few downsides to being in the EEA. We aren't an EMU nation and we never will be which means our influence is minimal and will always be minimal. If David Cameron wanted to negotiate the fabled "associate membership" people were talking about before the whole thing started it would have looked a lot like the EEA with EUParl seats, QMV rights and the treaty veto. The first two are meaningless and the latter may also be meaningless given that the appetite for a new EU treaty is almost zero.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
Cameron says he owns no shares. He has a salary, and he has some savings, which he gets some interests from, and he has a house, which he lets out. He has no shares or offshore funds.
He's talking about legal interests, not beneficial ones.
The great thing about trusts, for those who benefit from them, is that there is no requirement to register or report beneficial interests. Indeed there's not even a requirement to know that you've got any beneficial interests. Oh, did Daddy set up a 100 million pound trust for me in the British Virgin islands? Oh, I wouldn't know. And if I did, it would be a private matter.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else holding important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
A trust from which he derives no income?
At some point they are reportable in the UK.
On Tax Returns. And then that money is taxed. Unless there's a special box for 'Income I've received, but don't really wish to declare'.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
I seemed to remember Tim used to get very excited by the prospect of when Cameron's father would die it would be all very tricky for Dave in regards IHT and tax etc...and then we found that he only left Dave a rather modest sum.
tim used to get excited about 'Dave riding a horse' or 'Dave shopping in Morrisons'.....
Dave drinking a Guiness too....
Yes, but that was an incorrectly poured Guiness. Pant wetting stuff for tim.
I did say Cameron might leave office before the referendum. Will he even make it past the aftermath of next week's "anti-corruption" conference?
Oxfam are calling for an independent public review of the operations of the City of London Corporation. Whoop! Whoop!
Is MI6 breaking into two, or what?
You cannot be serious. He is leading next months (not weeks) conference in London and he was instrumental in the banning of a type of share used in the tax havens. Since when did Oxfam become a political movement expressly banned under their charity status.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Agreed. Brazil is also exceptionally protectionist.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Well within the EEA we would be at the table for drafting the regulations, we just wouldn't be there for the voting rounds. Though I'm sure being in the EEA would mean a less significant amount of input than being an EU member, again I don't see it as a big change.
EEA members already get full passport rights, so they would have to actively rescind that, which I don't think would be easy to do without our agreement as an EEA member.
As for advocating it, well I think it's myself, rcs1000 and possibly Casino Royale!
TOPPING, I hope you can see why I'm happy to leave the EU now. The numbers don't lie and they favour Brexit. Our reliance on EU exports is decreasing (quite a bit faster than most people realise), the single market for services is pathetic and there are fundamental issues with developing one (it would mean giving a serious amount of sovereignty to align product standards) and calling EU GDP growth abetter prepared to deal with any trade issues.
The single market for financial services is pretty good. We are able - as a small fund management firm - to sell to people across the EU/EEA (except Switzerland) under a common regulatory umbrella, and with no need for local representatives to provide regulatory cover. In Switzlerland we have to give up a third of our revenue to a local firm, who does little except satisfy the regulator.
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
I see so few downsides to being in the EEA. We arThe first two are meaningless and the latter may also be meaningless given that the appetite for a new EU treaty is almost zero.
I understand and see why you are happy with the EEA solution. A bit less influence as you say over eg. financial services regulation plus the veto, etc. Makes perfect sense.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
The ECB regulates the currency and all EUR-cleared business, they can do what they want with it. Check out BNP's recent $9bn fine as an fyi.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic views.
How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He does not intend taking any prisoners in the debate and if he performs in the debates as he did today I would expect remain to win by 55+
His argument for remain was only forceful because he wasn't challenged and his audience were putty in his hands because where he was in Birmingham.
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Agreed. Brazil is also exceptionally protectionist.
Doesn't an iPhone cost some crazy amount because of this..and so there is a whole thing of smuggling things like iPhones in from US.
Mid sized Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands and Chiles of the world.
But they are tiny and fragmented. Thailand represent 0.5% of world GDP, Chile 0.3%. The biggest is Brazil at 3% of world GDP, and that's not an obviously rich seam for us to mine.
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
Yes, it's this kind of thinking which is why our trade with China is so poor at the moment. 20 years ago China was too small to care about so our companies concentrated on the EU and US. The former hasn't necessarily developed to our benefit give the huge trade deficit.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11420858/Lord-Hills-capital-markets-plans-are-the-most-significant-EU-proposal-of-the-last-10-years.html
http://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/35970379
Wonder how many millions twitter have spent on this deal?
I wonder whether the Bilderberg illuminati lizards were behind the Panama papers leak.
Exports of services to non-EU: £137bn (7.4% of GDP)
About a 60/40 ratio in favour of non-EU trade. Services trade with the EU is important, but it isn't the silver bullet to economic growth for us.
The reality is that if you want to abolish freedom of movement then you need to vote Leave.
The reality is that if you want to maintain freedom of movement but move to the EFTA then you need to vote Leave.
Both are equally honest options and campaigners favouring both are well within their rights to campaign for their option.
Although back in the 1850s Britain made most of what we consumed (I guess - no figures to hand). Now we import a large amount of embodied carbon.
If the population want to control borders, its going to be a brave politician that goes for an EEA solution. If we go fully out there are sure to be other issues that we have rehearsed here many times, but we will not have to deal with the EHCR or freedom of movement, until the people of the country chose to elect a government that is in favour of such.
So such a supposed liberal you appear implacably opposed to the people of this country having a true say in their future outside the EU. The big irony is that your glorous leader said not three years ago that the UK would be fine outside the EU, and now all of a sudden it is going to be a complete disaster. And with that he started exaggerating his claim.
Net trade, services:
EU: +£20.1bn
Non-EU: +£67.8bn
She's still living in the same cottage, I believe, doing work for various charities - says it's pleasant to be able to decide who she actually wants to help and how much time to give to it. Nice woman, personally frugal but never made a fuss about it - if it hadn't been for the investigation into expenses, none of us would have noticed.
Yay for green taxes, exporting jobs and emissions to developing nations whilst increase the total amount of emissions made globally.
I'm only a few pages into Dan Hannan's book, Vote to Leave, and already my blood pressure is rising. There is no way anyone in their right mind would join this organisation today
Polls close at 2 AM London time, exit poll numbers could start leaking 3 hours earlier.
But since the winner is a bit assured the only thing that matters is the geographical distribution of the votes and the margin.
Trump could win CD-7 ( NW Wisconsin), CD-3 (Western Wisconsin), CD-1(Paul Ryan's seat on the Milwaukee-Chicago border) and CD-4 (Milwaukee centre).
Kasich could win CD-2 (Madison, the state capital).
Don't forget, "could" doesn't mean "should" or "will".
What's more, I'm the one who has argued against the EEA option in the event of a Leave result, precisely because it doesn't give Leave voters what they want. The dishonest ones are those who use 'control of our borders' as an argument to leave, whilst intending to retain it even if we do leave.
Although from the little I know of him Nigel Mills seems a decent sort as well and not personally greedy.
The EU is a slow-growth region and will be an even slower growing region in the decades to come - barring something fairly miraculous.
The share of UK services exports going to the EU is declining, even though the UK is geographically close to many of the member states and closely economically integrated with them.
Some of the biggest opportunities for future growth of services exports revolve around the collapsing costs of communications technology, which renders geographical proximity less important.
Does it really make sense to mortgage our political independence and judicial and legal independence to try to wring a few more drops out of an already pretty dry rag? It's doubtful.
It makes much more sense to concentrate on getting into the fast growing markets for services in the rest of the world. The current obsession with the EU of our political class and civil service is a massive misallocation of resources.
"improvements in the single market for services should allow us to..."
Well that's the problem. I'll believe it when I see it.
The argument that membership of the EU hinders exports to non-EU countries would be more persuasive if it wasn't for that the fact the UK is bottom of the list in the EU for exports to China. (And indeed most other non-EU countries.)
Why if the EU is such a hindrance to exporting to China, do Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have higher exports to China as a percentage of GDP than us? (Good news: we're ahead of Greece and Portugal)
What is it about the EU that specifically hinders us?
The other problem is that is the TIPP is (in its current incarnation) a slightly better deal than the TPP. So, the TPP countries (Japan, Australia, etc.) have had to accept ISDS tribunals that operate in secret. And they've have to accept major restrictions on their ability to make intellectual property law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/it-now-remains-for-the-in-campaign-to-mobilise-their-vote/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/it-now-remains-for-the-in-campaign-to-mobilise-their-vote/
Isn't the problem that existing EU deals favour export manufacturers over services, so we are held back by being in the EU?
Leaving the EEA would have very major consequences for my firm. Leaving the EU? Basically no negative impact.
Please take this as a genuine question rather than a personal attack.
Why did you sell up and bugger off to Islington so soon after losing your seat rather than live in the constituency which, I presume, you claimed to love so much when you were standing for election? Do you not think that this is one reason why the public are so cynical about MPs these days? Ex-MPs who stay living in their seats after leaving parliament sadly seem to be a rarity now.
Guardian - "But he does not answer on behalf of other members of his family."
When did you stop hitting your wife....the thing is with a question like that, how is he supposed to know? Do you know the personal finances of your brother, your uncle, your nephew?
I personally would not enter into a free trade deal with the USA and I'm opposed to the TITP and TPP. The US want to wring every last dollar out of its trading partners in order to make up for their huge deficit with China.
As for trade with China, it's simple, we don't make products and services that Chinese companies and consumers want. Lamentable, but fixable either in or out of the EU.
How I was taken in by this guy.
Oxfam are calling for an independent public review of the operations of the City of London Corporation. Whoop! Whoop!
Is MI6 breaking into two, or what?
In another 20 years, the share of our services exports going to the EU will probably be below 30%.
I shall see if I can dig out data on services sales as a percentage of GDP. Although - to be fair - I'm not sure where I'd get that data (UBS or GS are probably the best bet...)
The EU excluding the UK accounts for around 20% of world GDP. If you don't want a trade deal with the USA (22% of world GDP), and think we don't need one with China (13% of world GDP), where do you think the extra growth from being able to do our own trade deals outside the EU is supposed to come from?
My view is that we don't have an export problem. We have a consumer debt problem that leads to a current account deficit. It also skews the banking sector: it is more profitable (currently) to lend to over-indebted consumers than to small businesses.
I don't think anyone took it as desertion - they could see I needed to go where I could find work. If I'd been about to retire that would have been different, of course.
The great thing about trusts, for those who benefit from them, is that there is no requirement to register or report beneficial interests. Indeed there's not even a requirement to know that you've got any beneficial interests. Oh, did Daddy set up a 100 million pound trust for me in the British Virgin islands? Oh, I wouldn't know. And if I did, it would be a private matter.
This isn't about whether David Cameron has stopped beating his wife. Let him make a statement about all of his financial interests, whether legal or beneficial, held in any jurisdiction in the world. He's the prime minister! Don't people get it? If he's got secret money, held and invested secretly, he's open to blackmail. The same goes for senior judges and anyone else who holds important public office. If this isn't a national security issue, I wonder what on earth is.
Mossack and Fonseca havent signed the Official Secrets Act.
And why aren't any newspapers looking at the British end of the Mossack Fonseca operation, run by Emmanuel Cohen? He's the chairman of Mossack Fonseca (UK) Ltd.
At some point they are reportable in the UK.
The idea of Jeremy Corbyn being PM.
The problem with secrets is they are secret, and so you won't know if they exist or not. You will just drive yourself into a spin looking for movements in the shadows that probably aren't there.
From my perspective, there is nothing the EU does that is wholly overbearing and the things that I am aware of, eg financial services regulation, given our huge dependence on the sector, and knowing some of the minutiae of forthcoming EU regulations, I simply would prefer not to give up any influence. In fact the idea of the critical negotiations taking place with which UK-based financial services companies would have to comply, without us being at the table, fills me with a certain amount of anxiety.
To say nothing of the eurozone discrimination/non-discrimination clause. Does that get added to the EEA? Perhaps, perhaps not, in which case why wouldn't the ECB repatriate EUR-denominated business to the EZ?
So I get the EEA solution. People would think I'm churlish to point out that there is no official Leave organisation (or unofficial one), however, that is advocating it...
Out of interest, how do you think that works, short of the EZ imposing exchange controls?
Of course, some of them are likely to be fast-growing, but from a small base, and they are a long way away and many of them culturally not a good fit for us. We should of course be doing our best to trade with them all, but the big boys are the US, the EU, and China. And if all goes well we'll have the US covered through TTIP if we Remain.
EEA members already get full passport rights, so they would have to actively rescind that, which I don't think would be easy to do without our agreement as an EEA member.
As for advocating it, well I think it's myself, rcs1000 and possibly Casino Royale!
Just hope Cameron remembers Aston villa was his favorite team and not West ham.