Just looking at historical data, it's interesting to note that our GDP in 1975 was $241bn compared to France's $360bn, today the figures are $2.99tn for us vs $2.83tn for France. The economic picture has changed a lot since the last referendum, we have less reason to hold on to the security blanket than we did then.
Or the EU has been good for us.
If you ignore the impact of reforms in the 80s. Also doesn't explain why we are ahead of France.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Only relevant if he was trying to capture the country's mood rather than trying to shape it.
The headline on the BBC news website will shape the country's mood, but negatively.
"Hague: Don't judge PMs on their finances"
The BBC has updated their top story from "Lord Hague calls for 'maturity' in leaders' tax debate" which to my mind is only sensible, and replaced with an unhelpful negative one.
Cameron needs to use the authority of Primus Inter Pares when it counts which is at the end of the gig.The last few days are crucial and the last day absolutely crucial in forming opinion.Cameron must hope his reputation is restored by the time he really needs to perform,the final day with the message a "leap in the dark" ringing in voters ears' as they reach for their pencils. The other time Cameron needs to step in is the when the postal votes hit the doormats.The rest of the time Cameron needs to take a back seat and reshuffle his cabinet to attempt to resolve Tory internal division.Past PMs need to step up to the plate,the least unpopular by far being Sir John Major. Cameron needs to intervene smarter when it matters.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
What a very good post, puts me in mind of that tweet by Thornberry of the white van and Union Jack. The establishment loathe the WWC.
There was no loathing expressed in Thornberry's tweet. Only paranoia in the reaction.
I think you need a refresher course in Reading Between The Lines. Of course Thornberry was sneering her loathing of That Type of Voter. Politicians need to learn Politics 1.01: don't look your down your nose at the voters.
Just looking at historical data, it's interesting to note that our GDP in 1975 was $241bn compared to France's $360bn, today the figures are $2.99tn for us vs $2.83tn for France. The economic picture has changed a lot since the last referendum, we have less reason to hold on to the security blanket than we did then.
Or the EU has been good for us.
I've actually said that, it would be stupid to deny it. The question that needs answering is whether the EU will continue to be good for us or whether it will continue to stagnate and drag us down with it. I'm of the opinion it will be the latter. Our picture of "reform" is totally different to the picture of reform on the continent and it is better for us to extract ourselves from it while the cost of separation is as low as it is.
Just looking at historical data, it's interesting to note that our GDP in 1975 was $241bn compared to France's $360bn, today the figures are $2.99tn for us vs $2.83tn for France. The economic picture has changed a lot since the last referendum, we have less reason to hold on to the security blanket than we did then.
Or the EU has been good for us.
If you ignore the impact of reforms in the 80s. Also doesn't explain why we are ahead of France.
Of course it does, the lift to the French economy was already in the 1975 figure it having created the single market in the 50s.
However you look at it, these figures suggest the EU has been a success for the UK.
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
From talking to friends, there's a great deal of truth in your last paragraph.
Yes, such Remainers like to think they're the enlightened, intelligent and objective ones but, as usual, their views are informed as much by what is emotionally visceral as for Leavers.
As an aside, the Establishment has been pro-EU for a very long time for slightly different reasons. It sounds silly, given how far in the past it now is, but we underestimate how much things like the Fall of Singapore in 1942 and the Suez Crisis in 1956 totally shook Britain's ability to govern itself as an independent nation to the core.
The economic sluggishness of the 60s and 70s only added to that.
In the same way as taxes are something other people should pay more of, it seems for a lot of Brits democracy is something you shouldn't have more of unless it comes up with the right(-on) answers. Can't have those fearful oiks in the lower order having a say over how their country operates they might do all sorts of dreadful things.
I'm not sure that adequately reflects their views or their reasoning ...
So who is being kept in check then if not the voters ?
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
Yes. The prospect of the a post Brexit UK being led by the headbangers of the Tory right running riot is quite a good motivator for Remainers.
I wouldn't worry. We will get the governments we vote for as per democracy.
Very nice interest rate that. I haven't remortgaged as my current rate is base+1.99% (so 2.49%) and has been for nearly four years now. In 2010 I thought base was unlikely to rise soon so took a punt on a 2 year fixed with an eye on that low tracker afterwards, in 2012 when my fixed period finished was content to stay with that and see nothing to make me change my mind any time soon.
Even if base does start rising it will have to rise much higher than I'd expect to make me sweat.
My interest rate has been 0.49% above base since March 2009 - so 7 years at under 1%.
Sometimes, fixed term rates just aren't the way to go....
Cameron needs to use the authority of Primus Inter Pares when it counts which is at the end of the gig.The last few days are crucial and the last day absolutely crucial in forming opinion.Cameron must hope his reputation is restored by the time he really needs to perform,the final day with the message a "leap in the dark" ringing in voters ears' as they reach for their pencils. The other time Cameron needs to step in is the when the postal votes hit the doormats.The rest of the time Cameron needs to take a back seat and reshuffle his cabinet to attempt to resolve Tory internal division.Past PMs need to step up to the plate,the least unpopular by far being Sir John Major. Cameron needs to intervene smarter when it matters.
That is what Harold Wilson did in 1975. There was a good cross-party YES campaign (unlike Remain 2016) with Jenkins, Heath, Whitelaw, Thorpe et al leading. Wilson made a couple of speeches at the end of the campaign, as did Harold MacMillan.
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
The fact the EU forbids us from concluding independent trade deals with them, unlike EEA members which get single market access and are free to conclude their own trade deals.
Germany exports much more to both China and India than we do.
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
Vaguely on topic, quite a few colleagues have received the Government leaflet over the past few days.
Has firmed up a few Remainers, seen a few switchers from Leave to Remain too.
It might well be a disreputable tactic from the PM, but it might be effective.
There's still plenty of time for flaps, panics and crisis to change that.
O/T There's just been an interesting discussion on France 24 re tax havens. One lefty MEP seem to think that the money should be 'Europe's' to be used for productive investment etc.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
What a very good post, puts me in mind of that tweet by Thornberry of the white van and Union Jack. The establishment loathe the WWC.
There was no loathing expressed in Thornberry's tweet. Only paranoia in the reaction.
I think you need a refresher course in Reading Between The Lines. Of course Thornberry was sneering her loathing of That Type of Voter. Politicians need to learn Politics 1.01: don't look your down your nose at the voters.
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
As Max notes, we can probably get better deals, more tailored to our stronger trading areas, outside the EU.
But there is another point too - there is little point in being in a preferential trade system with a group of countries that form a minority of your foreign trade and where that minority is set to shrink further. Especially if the cost of that is high in terms of lost political and judicial independence.
The debt dynamics in this article are based upon an assumed steady state. I think things will be worse than that as we are already overdue another recession. The unfixed Euro crisis has never gone away.
Debt to GDP is falling in: Spain, Ireland, Portugal... in fact, everywhere except Italy (where it peaks this quarter, and it should decline this year), Greece (which is still fucked), and France (where their economy is in serious trouble). (The data on Spain in that chart ends in June 2015.)
On IMF numbers, most EZ countries are running cyclically adjusted surpluses. You also have to remember that consumer debt levels in the EZ are way below the levels in much of the rest of the world: Italy, Germany and France are all sub-60%. We're north of 150%.
But the EZ has such low growth. France and Italy are a massive drag on the EZ.
The issue is that the EZ has low growth potential. 1.5-2% GDP growth is probably close to the long term trend for the EZ, even with countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain starting from a low base. The issue is that the spending rules being enforced on them don't allow for long term investments in the economy. The mandatory government spending required for countries in southern Europe to continue functioning is relatively high which leaves little to no room for capital spending. They will need to continue liberalising and slashing their welfare states in order to make room for capital spending with the current borrowing rules put in place by the ECB/EC. In countries like France, Italy and Greece this seems like a very unlikely outcome, look at how France has reacted to minor changes in the pension age and minor changes to the welfare state in the past.
The truth is that the developed world has such appalling demographics that 1-2% is probably pushing it. I'd reckon Japan is probably 0.5%, Italy and France 0.5-1%, Eastern Europe 1-1.5%, and Spain, Germany and us 1.5-2%.
But that doesn't mean we're all fu*ked. A small amount of inflation - say 2-2.5% a year - given that governments have long-term funding in place at 1.5%, would bring down government debt levels very quickly.
Funny you should mention inflation eroding the debt levels. Doesn't appear to be going to plan right now.
'What happens if the BoJ - which owns JGBs worth 70% of Japanese GDP - says it will not demand repayment of debts?'
Quite - the BoJ owned government debt has effectively been cancelled already.
The traditional argument is that if you formally cancel it there will be a massive rise in inflation expectations - but why would that happen? Despite BoJ bond buying monetary growth in Japan has been weak. And does anyone really expect massive net sales of JGBs by the BoJ in the years ahead?
To quote a piece I wrote on this very issue: "A thought experiment: if you need not pay interest, and the likelihood of the lender demanding repayment is zero, is it really debt?"
At one time, top managers were paid bonuses as interest free non-repayable loans from off-shore trusts. Not allowed now.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
Just looking at historical data, it's interesting to note that our GDP in 1975 was $241bn compared to France's $360bn, today the figures are $2.99tn for us vs $2.83tn for France. The economic picture has changed a lot since the last referendum, we have less reason to hold on to the security blanket than we did then.
Or the EU has been good for us.
I've actually said that, it would be stupid to deny it. The question that needs answering is whether the EU will continue to be good for us or whether it will continue to stagnate and drag us down with it. I'm of the opinion it will be the latter. Our picture of "reform" is totally different to the picture of reform on the continent and it is better for us to extract ourselves from it while the cost of separation is as low as it is.
The problems that drove us towards the EU are still present. If anything they are stronger.
To benefit from (rather than suffer from) globalisation, we need access and influence in large markets. We need alliances and politics with a non-isolationist mindset.
The UKIP type leaver wants to return us to some mythical age, but will end up with the failures of the 1960s and 1970s.
Just some observations on my experiences of the EU campaign from an Oxfordshire market town.
Firstly, I think that there is a decent level of groupthink going on, when the EU ref is brought up the group tends to be entirely in or out at first (or dividing along obvious lines e.g. Parents and offspring). However, over the past few days there's been considerable pushback over the £9 million leaflet and as a result it seems that people have swung out. Although I would expect that a few pensioners would heed it's advice and switch to staying in.
Also, I wonder if the Govt.'s leaflet will have the opposite effect in some areas, the branding of it may make some otherwise weak-inners find allying with the government unpalatable and as a result vote out.
I'd say that 70% will be the turning point for the result, below that and the more-certain-to-vote Outers will win.
PRO-EU campaigners have been urged to keep Labour high flier Chuka Umunna away from the TV cameras during the referendum as he puts off voters, it has been claimed.
A senior figure involved in the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign said: “He bombs in focus groups.”
Adding that private polling shows the sharp-suited smoothy was not helping the pro-EU cause, the insider said: “let’s just say he doesn’t turn the dial the right way for us”.
Yes. The prospect of the a post Brexit UK being led by the headbangers of the Tory right running riot is quite a good motivator for Remainers.
I wouldn't worry. We will get the governments we vote for as per democracy.
If there is a leave, with or without headbangers, it's because the voters willed it, liberals get so illiberal when they think the oiks might do the wrong thing and put anyone from the right or even the left in charge. You can almost hear them sneering over their gin and tonics, if the masses would only vote Lib Dem like responsible people the world would I am sure be a much better place.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
What a very good post, puts me in mind of that tweet by Thornberry of the white van and Union Jack. The establishment loathe the WWC.
There was no loathing expressed in Thornberry's tweet. Only paranoia in the reaction.
I think you need a refresher course in Reading Between The Lines. Of course Thornberry was sneering her loathing of That Type of Voter. Politicians need to learn Politics 1.01: don't look your down your nose at the voters.
Again, one person's 'reading between the lines' is another person's paranoia. Is it not rather odd though that she should choose the moment of a by-election to let everyone know how contemptuous she is of the working class?
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
The fact the EU forbids us from concluding independent trade deals with them, unlike EEA members which get single market access and are free to conclude their own trade deals.
Germany exports much more to both China and India than we do.
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
What a very good post, puts me in mind of that tweet by Thornberry of the white van and Union Jack. The establishment loathe the WWC.
There was no loathing expressed in Thornberry's tweet. Only paranoia in the reaction.
I think you need a refresher course in Reading Between The Lines. Of course Thornberry was sneering her loathing of That Type of Voter. Politicians need to learn Politics 1.01: don't look your down your nose at the voters.
Again, one person's 'reading between the lines' is another person's paranoia. Is it not rather odd though that she should choose the moment of a by-election to let everyone know how contemptuous she is of the working class?
I seem to remember Miliband regarded it as something different than odd, he was furious.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
What a very good post, puts me in mind of that tweet by Thornberry of the white van and Union Jack. The establishment loathe the WWC.
A few posts on this thread in response are proving my point.
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
The fact the EU forbids us from concluding independent trade deals with them, unlike EEA members which get single market access and are free to conclude their own trade deals.
Germany exports much more to both China and India than we do.
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
Actually if you look at goods and services between 2013-15 Germany only exported about 12% more to India than we did.
But your point is irrelevant anyway - it may well be that one reason for the gap is precisely that the EU-negotiated trade arrangements with these countries don't serve well our particular export specialisms e.g. services.
No doubt if UK exports to these countries were higher than Germany's you would be saying the EU works fine as well.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Just looking at historical data, it's interesting to note that our GDP in 1975 was $241bn compared to France's $360bn, today the figures are $2.99tn for us vs $2.83tn for France. The economic picture has changed a lot since the last referendum, we have less reason to hold on to the security blanket than we did then.
Or the EU has been good for us.
I've actually said that, it would be stupid to deny it. The question that needs answering is whether the EU will continue to be good for us or whether it will continue to stagnate and drag us down with it. I'm of the opinion it will be the latter. Our picture of "reform" is totally different to the picture of reform on the continent and it is better for us to extract ourselves from it while the cost of separation is as low as it is.
The problems that drove us towards the EU are still present. If anything they are stronger.
To benefit from (rather than suffer from) globalisation, we need access and influence in large markets. We need alliances and politics with a non-isolationist mindset.
The UKIP type leaver wants to return us to some mythical age, but will end up with the failures of the 1960s and 1970s.
Like Canada you mean ? You can do politics and alliances without being run by an external government, what was the name again, oh yes, EFTA.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
From talking to friends, there's a great deal of truth in your last paragraph.
Yes, such Remainers like to think they're the enlightened, intelligent and objective ones but, as usual, their views are informed as much by what is emotionally visceral as for Leavers.
As an aside, the Establishment has been pro-EU for a very long time for slightly different reasons. It sounds silly, given how far in the past it now is, but we underestimate how much things like the Fall of Singapore in 1942 and the Suez Crisis in 1956 totally shook Britain's ability to govern itself as an independent nation to the core.
The economic sluggishness of the 60s and 70s only added to that.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box Right wing Remainers think the EU is the only way to be a big England
Both are very defeatist IMHO, reflecting a lack of confidence in our people, but that's just my view.
The floaters will be scared of changing the status quo for fear of personal microeconomic reasons.
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
From talking to friends, there's a great deal of truth in your last paragraph.
Yes, such Remainers like to think they're the enlightened, intelligent and objective ones but, as usual, their views are informed as much by what is emotionally visceral as for Leavers.
As an aside, the Establishment has been pro-EU for a very long time for slightly different reasons. It sounds silly, given how far in the past it now is, but we underestimate how much things like the Fall of Singapore in 1942 and the Suez Crisis in 1956 totally shook Britain's ability to govern itself as an independent nation to the core.
The economic sluggishness of the 60s and 70s only added to that.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box Right wing Remainers think the EU is the only way to be a big England
Both are very defeatist IMHO, reflecting a lack of confidence in our people, but that's just my view.
The floaters will be scared of changing the status quo for fear of personal microeconomic reasons.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
A lot of shy leavers in West London as well.
Agreed. I think middle class areas like Richmond and Kew, and Hampstead and the like, will have higher Leave votes than many people think.
I haven't met a single Leaver in Barnes (except Zac who lives in Barnes).
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
The fact the EU forbids us from concluding independent trade deals with them, unlike EEA members which get single market access and are free to conclude their own trade deals.
Germany exports much more to both China and India than we do.
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
Quite right, Doc. Germany exports more because makes more things that the Chinese and Indians wish to buy. Germany also has pro-industry policies which help (e.g. shielding its manufacturers from insane energy price rises) and a well established education system that turns out young people with the skills that its industries need.
The Uk in contrast is still dogged by a government intent on implementing policies which are harmful to industry, a managerial class that can seemingly only look at the short term and an education system that is still not fit for the modern world despite its essential flaws having been first identified by a parliamentary commission in 1874.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box
One of the few compensations after the public eventually elect a Labour government is going to be watching the penny drop when they realise that the EU won't let the do many of the lefty things they want to do either. It's then, they will belatedly realise that the EU is a corporatist club run for big business, and is equally happy to obstruct both right and left-wing governments.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box
One of the few compensations after the public eventually elect a Labour government is going to be watching the penny drop when they realise that the EU won't let the do many of the lefty things they want to do either. It's then, they will belatedly realise that the EU is a corporatist club run for big business, and is equally happy to obstruct both right and left-wing governments.
Doesn't matter: in such circles, Leaving the EU is viewed as very non-U and not at all 'right on'.
Rebecca Harms MEP (pictured above), a qualified tree surgeon and Co-President of The Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, has said that some questions relating to the EU are not suitable for referendums.
Showing how much she values direct democracy, Ms. Harms used the shock of the recent rejection of the EU-Ukrainian agreement by the Netherlands to make the case for limiting the use of referendums in future warning that they could “endanger the existence of the EU”, reports Austria’s largest newspaper Kronen Zeitung.
On IMF numbers, most EZ countries are running cyclically adjusted surpluses. You also have to remember that consumer debt levels in the EZ are way below the levels in much of the rest of the world: Italy, Germany and France are all sub-60%. We're north of 150%.
Is this actually important or relevant in isolation?
I recall a chart going around that said that Brits had more net wealth than the rest of Europe which was put down to the fact that we own our own homes far more than the rest of Europe.
My mortgage runs at about 200% of my income, but then my house is worth about 400% of my income so I'm quite content with that.
The key question is not debt in isolation but debt:asset ratio.
This is a point which has been discussed many times, and I think what you say is true - to a point.
If you have expensive house with large debts against them, then you have a lot of leverage. If prices are firm, that's terrific. If prices were ever to significantly negatively adjust, you would have a serious problem.
How I wish I'd been born in c.1965 so I could have bought my first property in 1994.
I'd be 51 already (which is a bit crap) but I'd have the dollars.
It doesn't work like that mate, I was born in 63, my pals all talk of their folks buying houses for a couple of grand.
My parents bought their first house in Oldham for £300 and sold it seven years later for £500. They bought a black and white TV and a motorbike and sidecar with the proceeds.
They then moved into a rented council house. which they later bought for around £5000 under right to buy. I sold it recently for £165,000 when my mother went into a care home.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
I suppose their nightmare is my dream.
I would expect the UK post-Brexit, to remain a liberal democracy, but the political centre of gravity would be slightly more nationalistic than it is today.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box
One of the few compensations after the public eventually elect a Labour government is going to be watching the penny drop when they realise that the EU won't let the do many of the lefty things they want to do either. It's then, they will belatedly realise that the EU is a corporatist club run for big business, and is equally happy to obstruct both right and left-wing governments.
Doesn't matter: in such circles, Leaving the EU is viewed as very non-U and not at all 'right on'.
Exactly, so watching them grit their teeth and continue to mouth pro-EU platitudes as their rail privatisation gets shot down, and various attempts to bail out unprofitable businesses with public money get declared illegal state aid, and TTIP rampages across the public sector without them being able to stop it, is going to be one of the few moments of entertainment available.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
The big decolonisation phase was from c.1957 to c.1968
Britain was fighting nationalist movement right up until Churchill stood down (and slightly beyond) in 1955 but after Suez, both Tory and Labour governments rapidly got rid.
Both the money, the appetite and the will had gone
'It is still a lot of growth. The EZ GDP in 2014 was $11 000 billion. 1% growth is $110 billion per year.
You have to consider the baseline as well as percentage when considering rises.'
Yes but you have to consider the growth of other regions as well. If you do that, then these kinds of projections show the Eurozone's share of world GDP declining steadily over the next 10-15 years.
Even more striking is what happens to the Eurozone share of incremental world GDP growth. So while China and India may account for 35-40% of the rise in the level of world GDP over the next decade, the Eurozone's share will be less than 10%.
What is stopping us trading with those countries already?
The fact the EU forbids us from concluding independent trade deals with them, unlike EEA members which get single market access and are free to conclude their own trade deals.
Germany exports much more to both China and India than we do.
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
That is because its currency is artificially weak, and the imbalances that is creating are being corrected, for the moment, by the ECB.
If Charles is about, I have a question on the TTIP and pharmaceutical procurement. Currently the NHS is the single largest buyer of pharma products in the country and its policies are dictated by NICE. Under the terms of the TTIP will NICE still be able to continue functioning as the gatekeeper to the nation's drug policy or will the US try and have the ECJ rule it illegal as it is a restriction on the fair trade of US pharma products and an artificial barrier by which US companies are being kept out of the UK market? I've heard from a few people that my theory could be correct, but nothing conclusive. I know that US pharma are desperate to get rid of NICE as they feel that UK drug prices could rise by a fair bit without a single national buying policy and I've heard they think TTIP will enable them to challenge it.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
The big decolonisation phase was from c.1957 to c.1968
Britain was fighting nationalist movement right up until Churchill stood down (and slightly beyond) in 1955 but after Suez, both Tory and Labour governments rapidly got rid.
Both the money, the appetite and the will had gone
Yeah, I know, I was just puzzled about who the late leavers were.
IIRC, there was a second sell-off under the Wilson government - when they first went bankrupt. But that was more the military bases dotted around the globe.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
I believe a lot of the oil states were British protectorates, rather than than historic British territories in the conventional sense. The UK’s role appears to be more administrative, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire I believe. - But that’s were my guess work on the area grinds to a halt.
Miss Plato, he's not hiding. He's hard at work, in his new office. In a disused basement of an abandoned government building. In the toilet block, which has 'beware of the leopard' written on the door.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
I suppose their nightmare is my dream.
I would expect the UK post-Brexit, to remain a liberal democracy, but the political centre of gravity would be slightly more nationalistic than it is today.
I'm not sure I buy that. It's arguably our membership of the EU and free trade to an extent that fuels nationalist sentiment. The revival we are seeing of nationalism is to my mind due to a feeling that things are changing too quickly and identity is being lost. It's reaction. But nationalism has been in decline for 70 years I doubt it's going to revive now.
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm having lunch with the board of my consultancy firm in 3 weeks time. The owners are both firm Remainers, and live in Barnes. They even gave a short speech at a recent event where they alluded to remembering the first referendum and wondered if history would repeat itself this time with a similar decision - 'nod nod' to the staff.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
I suppose their nightmare is my dream.
I would expect the UK post-Brexit, to remain a liberal democracy, but the political centre of gravity would be slightly more nationalistic than it is today.
Conhome are asking why Hammond is largely invisible on EU related questions.
Is this fair? I honestly can't recall the last time I saw or heard about him. I'd almost forgotten he's FS.
Presumably he is Boris's mirror image. Want to be acceptable to both sides when the revolution comes leadership election happens. He had to pick a side so he went with the PM, but doesn't want to conspicuously piss off the Leavers incase he needs their votes later. Boris of course is doing pretty much the same, he still has the fence post up his butt, but is leaning OUT at the moment. Beware aftertiming explanation of their position, putting it in the proper light, after the vote.
Left wing Remainers think the EU keeps little England in its box
One of the few compensations after the public eventually elect a Labour government is going to be watching the penny drop when they realise that the EU won't let the do many of the lefty things they want to do either. It's then, they will belatedly realise that the EU is a corporatist club run for big business, and is equally happy to obstruct both right and left-wing governments.
Doesn't matter: in such circles, Leaving the EU is viewed as very non-U and not at all 'right on'.
At work, I never reveal myself as an outer. When asked, I say I can understand arguments on both sides, Oh I'm a divided.....
This post is, I'm afraid, going to raise the blood pressure of some.
The government leaflet arrived at my flat yesterday and was sat on the dining table when I got home. I casually asked my other half whether he had read it yet. "Not yet", he said, "but at least the In side has sent us something".
Miss Plato, he's not hiding. He's hard at work, in his new office. In a disused basement of an abandoned government building. In the toilet block, which has 'beware of the leopard' written on the door.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
Mr. Paris, the Gulf states in that list were never colonies, they were under British protection, a different thing entirely. The withdrawal of that protection was, if memory serves, a consequence of the Healey Defence Cuts in the late sixties, which explicitly stated the UK would no longer get involved East of Suez.
Of course, as we everything the UK position was never that clear cut and we continued to have Brits in positions of serious influence for years, if not decades, afterwards (e.g. the head of the Omani Internal Security Service was a Brit until well into the 1990's).
Just as there are shy Tories and don't we just know it, there are likely to be shy Tory Leavers. To some extent I'm one myself ...... I don't tell all my friends that I'm a pretty firm leaver, there's not much point in having arguments one can't win.
I suspect if you live somewhere like Putney (or Hampstead!), then there are likely a lot of shy Leavers.
If you're in Clacton, there might be shy Remainers.
I'm not sure what I'll say if Brexit comes up. Probably try and smile and change the subject, but a part of me is thinking of politely making the case for EEA-EFTA.
I am somewhat of a shy Remainer in that I don't like to get into arguments about it.
The two sides typically have very little time for each other's arguments. The other week I was having dinner with a friend who is also pro-Remain and he remarked that there was nothing to the Leave case except a hankering for the Empire. I said I thought that was going too far and that there were some sensible arguments for Leave. Then he challenged me to produce one and I couldn't. However, never liking to admit I am wrong, I kept trying for the next hour.
I could produce arguments for Remain with ease - I generally don't want to, as they have a massive advantage of Government support and being the status quo, but it's not difficult.
There are a good chunk of Remain supporters (like your friend) who are a little bit embarrassed about Britain, Britishness and British history who worry that UK independence will turbocharge patriotism, social conservatism and anglocentric policymaking, rather than progressive values, diversity and internationalism.
Quite simply, they think staying in the EU keeps it in check.
I suppose their nightmare is my dream.
I would expect the UK post-Brexit, to remain a liberal democracy, but the political centre of gravity would be slightly more nationalistic than it is today.
I'm not sure I buy that. It's arguably our membership of the EU and free trade to an extent that fuels nationalist sentiment. The revival we are seeing of nationalism is to my mind due to a feeling that things are changing too quickly and identity is being lost. It's reaction. But nationalism has been in decline for 70 years I doubt it's going to revive now.
Possibly, this is a definitional disagreement, but I don't see nationalism as being inherently a bad thing (it becomes a bad thing once it becomes a movement to subjugate or demonise others).
This post is, I'm afraid, going to raise the blood pressure of some.
The government leaflet arrived at my flat yesterday and was sat on the dining table when I got home. I casually asked my other half whether he had read it yet. "Not yet", he said, "but at least the In side has sent us something".
That's really quite funny.
But if I were attempting to run a Leave campaign (which would require a certain amount of madness or more likely masochism on my part, but at least I wouldn't be alone) that would drive me up the wall.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
Bear in mind that Sana'a, capital of the Yemen, was a closed city until the mid 1960's. The sun went own, the city gates were closed, not to be opened until the sun came up again. While the Brits were getting all groovy in Carnaby Street.
Change in the Gulf states has been so remarkably rapid over the past 30 years we tend to forget just how sleepy and, frankly, feudal they were even in recent history. Some may argue that essentially, they still are - with shopping.
This post is, I'm afraid, going to raise the blood pressure of some.
The government leaflet arrived at my flat yesterday and was sat on the dining table when I got home. I casually asked my other half whether he had read it yet. "Not yet", he said, "but at least the In side has sent us something".
No doubt they will when the gov gives £9m to the Leavers. Oh, wait.
In the 70s? Surely decolonisation was the 50s and early 60s? There were civil wars and name changes (eg Bangladesh split from Pakistan; Ceylon became Sri Lanka) but was there anyone left in the empire by then?
The fashion for declaring independence from the old empire during the 70s was another.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
According to Wiki, 11 countries gained independence from the United Kingdom during the 70s - I doubt Plato's personal recollections stretch back quite as far as the 50s and 60s.
Bored so I looked them up
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates. 1973 - Bahamas 1974 - Grenada 1976 - Seychelles 1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu 1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
Mr. Paris, the Gulf states in that list were never colonies, they were under British protection, a different thing entirely. The withdrawal of that protection was, if memory serves, a consequence of the Healey Defence Cuts in the late sixties, which explicitly stated the UK would no longer get involved East of Suez.
Of course, as we everything the UK position was never that clear cut and we continued to have Brits in positions of serious influence for years, if not decades, afterwards (e.g. the head of the Omani Internal Security Service was a Brit until well into the 1990's).
... yes, and why there's a small cohort of rich Arabs going through Sandhurst every time.
Speaking of the 70s - the real Tom and Barbara Goodes
Forty years ago a new book offered city dwellers a way to escape the rat-race and go back to the land. The author of the "bible" of self-sufficiency, John Seymour, convinced thousands to change their lives.
"I have met people who said my father ruined them," says Anne Sears.
His message met a receptive audience. A global oil crisis and striking coal-miners in Britain had made the public realise how reliant they were on fossil fuels to heat and light their homes. The environmental movement of the 1970s had also made them more conscious of green issues.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Only relevant if he was trying to capture the country's mood rather than trying to shape it.
The headline on the BBC news website will shape the country's mood, but negatively.
"Hague: Don't judge PMs on their finances"
Is he wrong?
Are you saying politicians shouldn't say an unpopular truth? Why don't we just replace all politicians with Churchill dogs to nod along with whatever media meme we have today?
Sorry about the delay in replying. It isn't true though, is it? A PM's finances should be part of what the electorate judge them on, alongside policies, integrity, ability, etc, etc.
It should not be the totality, but it's important. People who cannot manage their finances legally or well should not be allowed anywhere near the nation's finances.
I'm generally a fan of Cameron's (*), although he tests my patience at times. If the last few weeks had show real financial wrongdoing I'd have dropped support for him. But it hasn't.
In fact, I'm surprised at how simple his financial affairs were.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
The richest 10% have indeed borne the biggest burden of fiscal retrenchment, since 2010, according to the IFS.
But, it's unfair that that the burden has been disproportionately borne by those below retirement age.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
All most people want is a chance to be like Cameron's father and give their kids some of the opportunities he gave his.
Simples.
The fact is, we can never deliver equality. But we can have a go at equality of opportunity.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
Thin gruel, especially Laws' book.
As for your last paragraph, the same accusation can surely be thrown at Corbyn. He shows no effort to think what it's like to be from a different background: he's still in his parents' CND protest mode. Does he really have any clue about (say) life in the countryside? How about running a small business? Worse, he seems to not care.
His work experience outside politics and unionism is also quite laughable.
Do you have any evidence that your friend Jeremy tries to think what it's like to be from a different background?
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
"Research from YouGov shows that the Scottish Conservative leader is seen as a more suitable candidate for the post than Kezia Dugdale, her Scottish Labour counterpart.
A third of voters think that Ms Davidson would be a better leader of the opposition than Ms Dugdale. Fewer than a fifth say the opposite.
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
So how does that square with the fact that the rich are paying more tax as a proportion than oh, say, from 1997-2010?
But i don't know to what extent the toxicity of the Tory brand north of the border is priced into those figures.
Conservative leaflets mention the word Conservative at most once if at all and "Ruth Davidson" about 500 times.
Leaflets in Glasgow are asking people to vote for Ruth Davidson.
Clearly they learned from the SNP or should that be the "Alex Salmond for first minister" party?
I thought that was a wank thing to do at the time and I think this is a wank thing to do now. As far as I remember though, SNP election literature in 2007 actually mentioned the SNP though.
In fairness both the Tories and the SNP are right to lead with their strongest asset:
SNP will use 'Nicola Sturgeon for First Minister' as Holyrood election ballot paper slogan
As part of a series into the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
Hague's intervention this morning about MPs' finances might be well intentioned. It might even be correct. But it is also utterly inept, and fails to capture the country's mood.
Rachel Sylvester is perceptive in The Times today, as cited by Red Box:
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
Thin gruel, especially Laws' book.
As for your last paragraph, the same accusation can surely be thrown at Corbyn. He shows no effort to think what it's like to be from a different background: he's still in his parents' CND protest mode. Does he really have any clue about (say) life in the countryside? How about running a small business? Worse, he seems to not care.
His work experience outside politics and unionism is also quite laughable.
Do you have any evidence that your friend Jeremy tries to think what it's like to be from a different background?
The Telegraph demand that even subscribers turn off ad blockers - given I've spent a week trying to log-in during even the small hours to no effect - this is one paying customer who won't be renewing.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
"Research from YouGov shows that the Scottish Conservative leader is seen as a more suitable candidate for the post than Kezia Dugdale, her Scottish Labour counterpart.
A third of voters think that Ms Davidson would be a better leader of the opposition than Ms Dugdale. Fewer than a fifth say the opposite.
TUD linked to it earlier with a sneering tweet from Wings Over Bath which illustrated the decline in Scottish education (the 'rev' can't add 18 and 33....)
The Telegraph demand that even subscribers turn off ad blockers - given I've spent a week trying to log-in during even the small hours to no effect - this is one paying customer who won't be renewing.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
Are you sure, Miss Plato? I am a Telegraph subscriber and I have not had that problem. I have others, like their new site is rubbish and they seem to want me to login almost every time I visit, but never an issue with ad-blocking.
As part of a series into the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
"Research from YouGov shows that the Scottish Conservative leader is seen as a more suitable candidate for the post than Kezia Dugdale, her Scottish Labour counterpart.
A third of voters think that Ms Davidson would be a better leader of the opposition than Ms Dugdale. Fewer than a fifth say the opposite.
TUD linked to it earlier with a sneering tweet from Wings Over Bath which illustrated the decline in Scottish education (the 'rev' can't add 18 and 33....)
Ryan Bourne made an interesting point in City am today.
He thinks that the obsession with the wealth of the super rich is down to the fact that the group that has fared worst in the past decade is not the poor but those earning 50/150 grand - ie the professional white collar class that is driving this debate.
This group say they want a more equitable distribution for the poor, but in fact they want to be richer relative to the super rich themselves.
The Telegraph demand that even subscribers turn off ad blockers - given I've spent a week trying to log-in during even the small hours to no effect - this is one paying customer who won't be renewing.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
Are you sure, Miss Plato? I am a Telegraph subscriber and I have not had that problem. I have others, like their new site is rubbish and they seem to want me to login almost every time I visit, but never an issue with ad-blocking.
The Telegraph demand that even subscribers turn off ad blockers - given I've spent a week trying to log-in during even the small hours to no effect - this is one paying customer who won't be renewing.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
As part of a series into the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
The guardian is caught in a bit of a bind here. Stop comments and lessen traffic and therefore ad revenues, or stick with it, but then have to accept sewer flith of all manner BTL from both the right and left.
The Telegraph demand that even subscribers turn off ad blockers - given I've spent a week trying to log-in during even the small hours to no effect - this is one paying customer who won't be renewing.
Guardian to consider preventing access to content if ad-blocking proliferates
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
Comments
England batsman James Taylor retires aged 26 due to serious heart condition
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/12/james-taylor-retire-heart-condition-notts-england
The other time Cameron needs to step in is the when the postal votes hit the doormats.The rest of the time Cameron needs to take a back seat and reshuffle his cabinet to attempt to resolve Tory internal division.Past PMs need to step up to the plate,the least unpopular by far being Sir John Major.
Cameron needs to intervene smarter when it matters.
Has firmed up a few Remainers, seen a few switchers from Leave to Remain too.
It might well be a disreputable tactic from the PM, but it might be effective.
Old - Hague urges 'mature' public tax debate
New - Hague: Don't judge PMs on their finances
However you look at it, these figures suggest the EU has been a success for the UK.
Felt like I needed a new atlas every few months. We were suffering an enormous existential crisis back then - it was all managed decline and walking backwards slowly.
Only if you want to risk a lengthy jail sentence....
Sometimes, fixed term rates just aren't the way to go....
It is not the need for trade deals that holds back British exporters.
O/T There's just been an interesting discussion on France 24 re tax havens.
One lefty MEP seem to think that the money should be 'Europe's' to be used for productive investment etc.
But there is another point too - there is little point in being in a preferential trade system with a group of countries that form a minority of your foreign trade and where that minority is set to shrink further. Especially if the cost of that is high in terms of lost political and judicial independence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36023527
To benefit from (rather than suffer from) globalisation, we need access and influence in large markets. We need alliances and politics with a non-isolationist mindset.
The UKIP type leaver wants to return us to some mythical age, but will end up with the failures of the 1960s and 1970s.
Firstly, I think that there is a decent level of groupthink going on, when the EU ref is brought up the group tends to be entirely in or out at first (or dividing along obvious lines e.g. Parents and offspring). However, over the past few days there's been considerable pushback over the £9 million leaflet and as a result it seems that people have swung out. Although I would expect that a few pensioners would heed it's advice and switch to staying in.
Also, I wonder if the Govt.'s leaflet will have the opposite effect in some areas, the branding of it may make some otherwise weak-inners find allying with the government unpalatable and as a result vote out.
I'd say that 70% will be the turning point for the result, below that and the more-certain-to-vote Outers will win.
But your point is irrelevant anyway - it may well be that one reason for the gap is precisely that the EU-negotiated trade arrangements with these countries don't serve well our particular export specialisms e.g. services.
No doubt if UK exports to these countries were higher than Germany's you would be saying the EU works fine as well.
Right wing Remainers think the EU is the only way to be a big England
Both are very defeatist IMHO, reflecting a lack of confidence in our people, but that's just my view.
The floaters will be scared of changing the status quo for fear of personal microeconomic reasons.
And there you have your Remain majority.
There's nothing new in that leaflet that hasn't been aired before.
The Uk in contrast is still dogged by a government intent on implementing policies which are harmful to industry, a managerial class that can seemingly only look at the short term and an education system that is still not fit for the modern world despite its essential flaws having been first identified by a parliamentary commission in 1874.
The Eu is really not relevant in any of this.
1971 - Fiji and Tonga, with Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Trucial States losing protectorates.
1973 - Bahamas
1974 - Grenada
1976 - Seychelles
1978 - Dominica, Solomon Island and Tuvalu
1979 - Kiribati, St Vincent and Grenadines, St Lucia
Not entirely sure what the deal with those gulf states is, but that seems really 'late' for those countries - I always assumed they were much, much more historic.
I grew up in a place that, when formally made independent, left the larger island and reverted to being a colony.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/12/greens-want-ban-referendums-europe-direct-democracy-threatens-eu/
They then moved into a rented council house. which they later bought for around £5000 under right to buy. I sold it recently for £165,000 when my mother went into a care home.
I would expect the UK post-Brexit, to remain a liberal democracy, but the political centre of gravity would be slightly more nationalistic than it is today.
Britain was fighting nationalist movement right up until Churchill stood down (and slightly beyond) in 1955 but after Suez, both Tory and Labour governments rapidly got rid.
Both the money, the appetite and the will had gone
Is this fair? I honestly can't recall the last time I saw or heard about him. I'd almost forgotten he's FS.
IIRC, there was a second sell-off under the Wilson government - when they first went bankrupt. But that was more the military bases dotted around the globe.
The government leaflet arrived at my flat yesterday and was sat on the dining table when I got home. I casually asked my other half whether he had read it yet. "Not yet", he said, "but at least the In side has sent us something".
Of course, as we everything the UK position was never that clear cut and we continued to have Brits in positions of serious influence for years, if not decades, afterwards (e.g. the head of the Omani Internal Security Service was a Brit until well into the 1990's).
But if I were attempting to run a Leave campaign (which would require a certain amount of madness or more likely masochism on my part, but at least I wouldn't be alone) that would drive me up the wall.
Change in the Gulf states has been so remarkably rapid over the past 30 years we tend to forget just how sleepy and, frankly, feudal they were even in recent history. Some may argue that essentially, they still are - with shopping.
No doubt they will when the gov gives £9m to the Leavers. Oh, wait.
Thanks.
It should not be the totality, but it's important. People who cannot manage their finances legally or well should not be allowed anywhere near the nation's finances.
I'm generally a fan of Cameron's (*), although he tests my patience at times. If the last few weeks had show real financial wrongdoing I'd have dropped support for him. But it hasn't.
In fact, I'm surprised at how simple his financial affairs were.
(*) Runs for cover.
"Ever since he ran for Tory leader, it’s been clear the public don’t really care that much about David Cameron’s personal wealth. It certainly didn’t stop them voting Tory in 2015. But the big picture here is not his wealth but what he and Osborne do to help others who are wealthy. And in her Times column today Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on the precise problem. She cites David Laws’ book detailing conversations on Lib Dem attempts to tackle corporate fraud. When asked how the Tories could oppose such plans, Cameron said “Not popular with business,” but Mr Osborne said, with a smile: “Not popular with our supporters.”
And Rachel then cites a senior serving minister: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you are rich provided you are conscious of the need to deal with the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich. You can only do that if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that we need to change. Why has the burden of deficit reduction fallen so heavily on working age welfare? There is a point where you run out of excuses.”
That's the point we've discussed here. It's not Cameron's fault, or in any way reprehensible, that he went to public school or had a rich father. The same applies to Osborne, Boris and others. But if you come from a prosperous background you need, if you want to be good at leading the country, to make an effort to think what it's like to be from a different background. I used to feel that Cameron made a reasonable shot at that (and Osborne didn't). But lately they've really not bothered.
But, it's unfair that that the burden has been disproportionately borne by those below retirement age.
Simples.
The fact is, we can never deliver equality. But we can have a go at equality of opportunity.
As for your last paragraph, the same accusation can surely be thrown at Corbyn. He shows no effort to think what it's like to be from a different background: he's still in his parents' CND protest mode. Does he really have any clue about (say) life in the countryside? How about running a small business? Worse, he seems to not care.
His work experience outside politics and unionism is also quite laughable.
Do you have any evidence that your friend Jeremy tries to think what it's like to be from a different background?
David Pemsel, chief executive of Guardian Media Group, says newspaper is undertaking testing of pop-up message asking readers to switch off ad-blockers
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/12/guardian-to-consider-preventing-access-to-content-if-ad-blocking-identified?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/scots-prefer-davidson-to-dugdale-in-opposition-qpsn855gx
"Research from YouGov shows that the Scottish Conservative leader is seen as a more suitable candidate for the post than Kezia Dugdale, her Scottish Labour counterpart.
A third of voters think that Ms Davidson would be a better leader of the opposition than Ms Dugdale. Fewer than a fifth say the opposite.
SNP will use 'Nicola Sturgeon for First Minister' as Holyrood election ballot paper slogan
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-use-nicola-sturgeon-first-7672862#
CDU/CSU 31.5%
SD 19.5%
Greens 13.5%
AfD 12.5%
Linke 9.5%
FDP 7.5%
Others 6%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
As part of a series into the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
Here's the tables:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5ucqccoike/Times_Scotland_160411_Website_VI_Davidson_Dugdale.pdf
Ruth Davidson - 33
Kezia Dugdale - 18
Among Tory 2015:
RD - 66
KD - 5
Lab 2015:
RD - 29
KD -30
LD 2015:
RD - 45
KD - 16
SNP 2015:
RD - 27
KD - 17
Even Labour voters realise that Kezia is a loser.
He thinks that the obsession with the wealth of the super rich is down to the fact that the group that has fared worst in the past decade is not the poor but those earning 50/150 grand - ie the professional white collar class that is driving this debate.
This group say they want a more equitable distribution for the poor, but in fact they want to be richer relative to the super rich themselves.
I don't really see a problem with showing some low key ads to subscribers, but they need to be unobtrusive and the content needs not to be clickbait.
Self-assessment tax collection in this country is a rather relaxed affair. It is estimated that 32% of returns are wrong (and that's not including deliberate fraud and non-returns from the black economy)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmpubacc/681/68105.htm
Tax-payers have 12 months to correct their own errors, extendable to four years in certain cases. Penalties for genuine errors are not particularly harsh.
http://taxaid.org.uk/guides/taxpayers/tax-returns/enquiries-and-other-problems-with-the-returns-you-have-submitted
There is a general amnesty in place for any taxpayer who has failed to file a return for years, resulting in the slashing of penalties if they come forward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/9683961/Tax-amnesty-own-up-now-and-avoid-a-fine.html
There is even an amnesty for the £100 fine for filing a late return, if the excuse is "reasonable".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11639907/Fines-amnesty-for-late-tax-returns.html