"But from the moment we vote LEAVE all things become possible, we can end EU immigration in total if you, the voter, so decide that, in the next General Election. We can leave the ECHR. We will be out of the hated CAP and CFP. The ECJ will no longer rule over us. And none of this is possible, none of this will happen, if we REMAIN, and if we REMAIN things could get a whole lot WORSE."
That's a better product than anything REMAIN are offering, and cogently presented by plausible people, would win, I think.
The fly in that ointment is the Tories will be for staying in the EEA, and Labour will either stay in the EEA or be ramping for a rejoin, and obviously the LDs will be looking to rejoin. So if people want to leave all that way they will have to vote for Farage's lads and lasses, and they won't... and they know they won't, so they are being offered (as usual) a choice between two parties of government with the same policy, which isn't the one they are looking for.
Question: How many registered companies past and present are there out of this address (next to Finchley spiritualist church)? (hint: it is linked to THAT ADDRESS)
Wow: you've found the address of a company that creates companies.
Here are some of the company creation companies on Finchley Road: Creation-UK Ltd, A1 Companies Ltd, City & Dominion Registrars Ltd.
Anyone know what Henchman's point might be? He's been jabbering on about company formation businesses for days now.
I've bought a few companies from such firms, and have yet to notice anything mysterious about them. Maybe they're all situated on Ley lines.
Hunchman's pal has discovered that a number of dodgy resource companies were formed at this address on Finchley Road. He then discovered that 250,000 other companies were formed at the same address, and that many of them had directors for only a day!
He therefore decided that this address on Finchley Road is the centre of an international conspiracy, rather than coming to the conclusion best warranted by the facts: that he's discovered a company that creates companies.
That's one way to describe 15 years of meticulous research with documents that conclusively prove fraud, theft and money laundering. It wouldn't be my way of describing it!
hunchman:
There have undoubtedly been companies created at that address that have been used for fraudulent purposes, and your friend deserves credit for discovering them.
But there have also been tens of thousands of other companies used for everything under sun, who's sole common factor is that they were created in a company creation factory on Finchley Road.
So why have successive governments done nothing about the fraud, theft and money laundering going on there for 40 years?
There's no theft and money laundering going on there. There have been companies formed at that address who have been - shall we say - dodgy.
But your friend is guilty of the most common psychological flaw of all: confirmation bias. He's searching for any company formed at that address with dodgy shit, and using that to tar all companies formed there. (Of which there are hundreds of thousands.)
It's just a company formation company. Nothing more, nothing less. He's seeing conspiracy where there is none.
"But from the moment we vote LEAVE all things become possible, we can end EU immigration in total if you, the voter, so decide that, in the next General Election. We can leave the ECHR. We will be out of the hated CAP and CFP. The ECJ will no longer rule over us. And none of this is possible, none of this will happen, if we REMAIN, and if we REMAIN things could get a whole lot WORSE."
That's a better product than anything REMAIN are offering, and cogently presented by plausible people, would win, I think.
The fly in that ointment is the Tories will be for staying in the EEA, and Labour will either stay in the EEA or be ramping for a rejoin, and obviously the LDs will be looking to rejoin. So if people want to leave all that way they will have to vote for Farage's lads and lasses, and they won't... and they know they won't, so they are being offered (as usual) a choice between two parties of government with the same policy, which isn't the one they are looking for.
Indigo:
Come on, say what you really mean: I, Indigo, hate EFTA/EEA because I think that -like the Norwegians- the British might like it. And if they like it, we'll never achieve my ultimate goal, utter and complete exit from the stinking sink of rotting flesh that is continental Europe.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Even net contribution is misleading because - with the exception of the rebate - the money the EU gives back to us not only comes with strict instructions on what it can be spent on but also very often requires additional matched funding from the UK Government.
So (to use 2014 as an example) if we get £5bn back from the EU out of our contribution of just over £19 billion, that £5 billion will have to be spent as the EU decides and a large part of it will require matched funding from the UK even if it is for projects we do not believe should be priority funded.
If we don't provide match funding then the EU does not give us the money back and people scream about how the Government is failing to let them benefit from EU money. Forgetting it is UK money in the first place and that taking it costs the Tax payer even more.
OK. Still, money doesn't smell. People in rural areas will probably not mind that the EU tells the Government to spend money on CAP that it wouldn't otherwise, and the macroeconomic effects remain the same. Do more people trust the government than the EU Commission to spend money? Unclear.
No not unclear at all. Rightly or wrongly (and in a number of cases it is indeed wrongly because people misunderstand how the EU works) the overwhelming impression people have of the EU is that it is corrupt, never gets its accounts signed off and is wasting money left right and centre.
'I see our esteemed Chancellor has told us that mortgage rates might go up if we leave the EU. I say bring it on.'
With the possible exception of Lord Rose telling us to expect pay increases if we leave the EU, the everything is going to crash & burn stuff is wearing a bit thin now.
Still I guess we haven't been told yet about the plague we can expect after BREXIT.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
"But from the moment we vote LEAVE all things become possible, we can end EU immigration in total if you, the voter, so decide that, in the next General Election. We can leave the ECHR. We will be out of the hated CAP and CFP. The ECJ will no longer rule over us. And none of this is possible, none of this will happen, if we REMAIN, and if we REMAIN things could get a whole lot WORSE."
That's a better product than anything REMAIN are offering, and cogently presented by plausible people, would win, I think.
The fly in that ointment is the Tories will be for staying in the EEA, and Labour will either stay in the EEA or be ramping for a rejoin, and obviously the LDs will be looking to rejoin. So if people want to leave all that way they will have to vote for Farage's lads and lasses, and they won't... and they know they won't, so they are being offered (as usual) a choice between two parties of government with the same policy, which isn't the one they are looking for.
Indigo:
Come on, say what you really mean: I, Indigo, hate EFTA/EEA because I think that -like the Norwegians- the British might like it. And if they like it, we'll never achieve my ultimate goal, utter and complete exit from the stinking sink of rotting flesh that is continental Europe.
Nope. If either Labour or the Tories after a Leave vote supported an all the way out option that would be fine, then the public have a real choice. The suggestion that 12 million people are going to vote to have the country run by Farage for five years to leave the EEA if that is what they want seems.... fanciful.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Even net contribution is misleading because - with the exception of the rebate - the money the EU gives back to us not only comes with strict instructions on what it can be spent on but also very often requires additional matched funding from the UK Government.
So (to use 2014 as an example) if we get £5bn back from the EU out of our contribution of just over £19 billion, that £5 billion will have to be spent as the EU decides and a large part of it will require matched funding from the UK even if it is for projects we do not believe should be priority funded.
If we don't provide match funding then the EU does not give us the money back and people scream about how the Government is failing to let them benefit from EU money. Forgetting it is UK money in the first place and that taking it costs the Tax payer even more.
This is something I think we need to make more of. It's not solely about the 'net' number, it's about having control over how it's spent.
(Is the rebate included in the 'returned' money?)
The rebate isn't really returned money. It is money that never goes in the first place. One of the failings of the Leave campaign is they have tried to claim this as part of the Gross contribution. It really isn't and there is no way any sensible observer would consider it as such given it never leaves the UK treasury. The EU doesn't help this by always referring to the gross contribution before the rebate is calculated. They do kind of shoot themselves in the foot with that.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Although CO would have the advantage that the UK would become a CO formation agent.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
Question: How many registered companies past and present are there out of this address (next to Finchley spiritualist church)? (hint: it is linked to THAT ADDRESS)
Wow: you've found the address of a company that creates companies.
Here are some of the company creation companies on Finchley Road: Creation-UK Ltd, A1 Companies Ltd, City & Dominion Registrars Ltd.
Anyone know what Henchman's point might be? He's been jabbering on about company formation businesses for days now.
I've bought a few companies from such firms, and have yet to notice anything mysterious about them. Maybe they're all situated on Ley lines.
.
ing it!
hunchman:
There have undoubtedly been companies created at that address that have been used for fraudulent purposes, and your friend deserves credit for discovering them.
But there have also been tens of thousands of other companies used for everything under sun, who's sole common factor is that they were created in a company creation factory on Finchley Road.
So why have successive governments done nothing about the fraud, theft and money laundering going on there for 40 years?
There's no theft and money laundering going on there. There have been companies formed at that address who have been - shall we say - dodgy.
But your friend is guilty of the most common psychological flaw of all: confirmation bias. He's searching for any company formed at that address with dodgy shit, and using that to tar all companies formed there. (Of which there are hundreds of thousands.)
It's just a company formation company. Nothing more, nothing less. He's seeing conspiracy where there is none.
With respect you're still dodging around the questions I've posed over the past 10 days:
1) Why has no one taken Mr Bowden to court since the Andrea Davison case if he's spreading falsehoods as you say?
2) Why has the BBC not acted on his dossier of evidence since March 2015? (hint BBC senior execs involved in the fraud)
3) My sources tell me that all 650 MP's have been informed about this and none choose to speak out - why?
In the last 2 answers you've directly contradicated yourself and I quote: "There have undoubtedly been companies created at that address that have been used for fraudulent purposes, and your friend deserves credit for discovering them" and "There's no theft and money laundering going on there."
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
'I see our esteemed Chancellor has told us that mortgage rates might go up if we leave the EU. I say bring it on.'
With the possible exception of Lord Rose telling us to expect pay increases if we leave the EU, the everything is going to crash & burn stuff is wearing a bit thin now.
Still I guess we haven't been told yet about the plague we can expect after BREXIT.
Osborne has shown he doesn't have a clue about economic cycles. Higher interest rates are coming via the sovereign debt crisis starting in earnest in January 2017 regardless of the referendum result in June.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Although CO would have the advantage that the UK would become a CO formation agent.
... lots of stuff about supposed dodgy shell companies on the Finchley Road ...
Christ on a bike I think this dead horse has been flogged, slaughtered, butchered, diced, blended, pulverized, dessicated and burned on a fire on midsummer's eve!
'The pitch would be "This is where we will go, for the next few years, as we work out trade deals, to keep things absolutely stable: into EFTA. Free movement will continue, free trade will continue.
"But from the moment we vote LEAVE all things become possible, we can end EU immigration in total if you, the voter, so decide that, in the next General Election. We can leave the ECHR. We will be out of the hated CAP and CFP. The ECJ will no longer rule over us. And none of this is possible, none of this will happen, if we REMAIN, and if we REMAIN things could get a whole lot WORSE."
It's an excellent holding position that guarantees stability and gives whatever time is required to negotiate trade agreements & when these are completed a further referendum can be held.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Even net contribution is misleading because - with the exception of the rebate - the money the EU gives back to us not only comes with strict instructions on what it can be spent on but also very often requires additional matched funding from the UK Government.
So (to use 2014 as an example) if we get £5bn back from the EU out of our contribution of just over £19 billion, that £5 billion will have to be spent as the EU decides and a large part of it will require matched funding from the UK even if it is for projects we do not believe should be priority funded.
If we don't provide match funding then the EU does not give us the money back and people scream about how the Government is failing to let them benefit from EU money. Forgetting it is UK money in the first place and that taking it costs the Tax payer even more.
This is something I think we need to make more of. It's not solely about the 'net' number, it's about having control over how it's spent.
(Is the rebate included in the 'returned' money?)
The rebate isn't really returned money. It is money that never goes in the first place. One of the failings of the Leave campaign is they have tried to claim this as part of the Gross contribution. It really isn't and there is no way any sensible observer would consider it as such given it never leaves the UK treasury.
Imagine that someone negotiates away or surrenders the rebate, maybe in the name of being a good socialist. Perhaps a PM Corbyn.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Although CO would have the advantage that the UK would become a CO formation agent.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
Unless QMV applies, which we were unsure about, and allowing for European Neighbourhood Policy, which definitely does apply.
It does make me laugh at how some Tories in the leave camp feel betrayed by Cameron in the past couple of months. This should not have come as a surprise after this episode last September:
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
That would be my understanding and could be very controversial. Also would any deal need to be agreed by the HOC and HOL
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
How democratic of you. EFTA should be on the table, as should the alternative. I know you don't want CO. I don't particularly want it either, much as you try and put that view on me despite my explicit denial. But there are 30 million other people who get a say, and they might not agree with us, and we shouldn't rig the debate to get the answer we like, especially having spend the last several months accusing Cameron and Osborne of having done just that!
I don't know, maybe there was something unclear about my post fifteen minutes ago
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step.
The Remain tactic of scaring about higher interest rates is noteworthy. A decision has been taken to appeal to (younger) mortgage holders at the risk of alienating (older) voters who have no mortgage but substantial savings.
It may be the start of a concerted effort to get younger voters out.
Yes's big failure in SindyRef was a lack of messaging aimed at OAPs.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
I do know some of the details of various treaties but what is CO
Question: How many registered companies past and present are there out of this address (next to Finchley spiritualist church)? (hint: it is linked to THAT ADDRESS)
Wow: you've found the address of a company that creates companies.
Here are some of the company creation companies on Finchley Road: Creation-UK Ltd, A1 Companies Ltd, City & Dominion Registrars Ltd.
Anyone know what Hunchman's point might be? He's been jabbering on about company formation businesses for days now.
I've bought a few companies from such firms, and have yet to notice anything mysterious about them. Maybe they're all situated on Ley lines.
This will give you a flavour - there are companies registered at Winnington House, Woodberry House, will give you the Registered Office. Looks as if someone hasn't updated the data at Companies House, or the Returns haven't been made since formation. Nothing sinister.
Where would you deliver the post for all these companies for all 6 addresses in the picture I gave you earlier in this thread?!
You don't understand how Companies are formed do you?
Watford30 - the most clueless and humourless poster on PB - enough said.
Funny. You seem convinced that thousands of businesses are all running from a small flat in Finchley, yet the pages you link to show exactly the opposite. 0/10, stand in the corner.
You've just proved that you haven't even been following what I've been saying over the past 10 days! - the centre of the operation is THAT ADDRESS (788 790 Finchley Road). 2 Woodberry Grove is a conduit address along with 108 / 110 / 420 / 665 / 923 / 1033 and 1035 Finchley Road.
'Conduit' addresses? They're token addresses used by a Company Formations business.
And your 'mate' has spent/wasted 15 years on this, no doubt connecting newspaper articles pinned to grimy walls with lengths of string.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
It would depend if a new treaty was required.
As we saw last week in the Dutch referendum, a single state can obstruct a treaty for its own reasons (though a referendum post ratification does have a few wrinkles!)
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Even net contribution is misleading because - with the exception of the rebate - the money the EU gives back to us not only comes with strict instructions on what it can be spent on but also very often requires additional matched funding from the UK Government.
So (to use 2014 as an example) if we get £5bn back from the EU out of our contribution of just over £19 billion, that £5 billion will have to be spent as the EU decides and a large part of it will require matched funding from the UK even if it is for projects we do not believe should be priority funded.
If we don't provide match funding then the EU does not give us the money back and people scream about how the Government is failing to let them benefit from EU money. Forgetting it is UK money in the first place and that taking it costs the Tax payer even more.
This is something I think we need to make more of. It's not solely about the 'net' number, it's about having control over how it's spent.
(Is the rebate included in the 'returned' money?)
The rebate isn't really returned money. It is money that never goes in the first place. One of the failings of the Leave campaign is they have tried to claim this as part of the Gross contribution. It really isn't and there is no way any sensible observer would consider it as such given it never leaves the UK treasury.
Imagine that someone negotiates away or surrenders the rebate, maybe in the name of being a good socialist. Perhaps a PM Corbyn.
The bill will become very real.
You mean like how a certain Mr T Blair gave away half (?) the rebate with nothing in return?
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
It would depend if a new treaty was required.
As we saw last week in the Dutch referendum, a single state can obstruct a treaty for its own reasons (though a referendum post ratification does have a few wrinkles!)
Given we would be negotiating under Article 50 which has already been passed in Lisbon and it provides for a QMV decision, why would we need a new treaty?
If we were to join the EFTA then it may not even need that much since the agreement is already in place and we'd just need EFTA members agreement to join their club.
It does make me laugh at how some Tories in the leave camp feel betrayed by Cameron in the past couple of months. This should not have come as a surprise after this episode last September:
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would look if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
What would our gross contribution look like if we joined EFTA?
Or are you hoping nobody notices that if we go up the route the Tory Leavers are certain to opt for that we will still be making a huge contribution to the EU as well as accepting freedom of movement.?
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Even net contribution is misleading because - with the exception of the rebate - the money the EU gives back to us not only comes with strict instructions on what it can be spent on but also very often requires additional matched funding from the UK Government.
So (to use 2014 as an example) if we get £5bn back from the EU out of our contribution of just over £19 billion, that £5 billion will have to be spent as the EU decides and a large part of it will require matched funding from the UK even if it is for projects we do not believe should be priority funded.
If we don't provide match funding then the EU does not give us the money back and people scream about how the Government is failing to let them benefit from EU money. Forgetting it is UK money in the first place and that taking it costs the Tax payer even more.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
'I see our esteemed Chancellor has told us that mortgage rates might go up if we leave the EU. I say bring it on.'
With the possible exception of Lord Rose telling us to expect pay increases if we leave the EU, the everything is going to crash & burn stuff is wearing a bit thin now.
Still I guess we haven't been told yet about the plague we can expect after BREXIT.
Osborne has shown he doesn't have a clue about economic cycles. Higher interest rates are coming via the sovereign debt crisis starting in earnest in January 2017 regardless of the referendum result in June.
Question: How many registered companies past and present are there out of this address (next to Finchley spiritualist church)? (hint: it is linked to THAT ADDRESS)
Wow: you've found the address of a company that creates companies.
Here are some of the company creation companies on Finchley Road: Creation-UK Ltd, A1 Companies Ltd, City & Dominion Registrars Ltd.
Anyone know what Hunchman's point might be? He's been jabbering on about company formation businesses for days now.
I've bought a few companies from such firms, and have yet to notice anything mysterious about them. Maybe they're all situated on Ley lines.
This will give you a flavour - there are companies registered at Winnington House, Woodberry House, will give you the Registered Office. Looks as if someone hasn't updated the data at Companies House, or the Returns haven't been made since formation. Nothing sinister.
Where would you deliver the post for all these companies for all 6 addresses in the picture I gave you earlier in this thread?!
You don't understand how Companies are formed do you?
Watford30 - the most clueless and humourless poster on PB - enough said.
Funny. You seem convinced that thousands of businesses are all running from a small flat in Finchley, yet the pages you link to show exactly the opposite. 0/10, stand in the corner.
You've just proved that you haven't even been following what I've been saying over the past 10 days! - the centre of the operation is THAT ADDRESS (788 790 Finchley Road). 2 Woodberry Grove is a conduit address along with 108 / 110 / 420 / 665 / 923 / 1033 and 1035 Finchley Road.
'Conduit' addresses? They're token addresses used by a Company Formations business.
And your 'mate' has spent/wasted 15 years on this, no doubt connecting newspaper articles pinned to grimy walls with lengths of string.
Its no wonder with people like you around Watford30 that this has gone on for the past 40 years, You couldn't see this going on even if the documents (companies house, company check etc) were laid in front of you, and many in the establishment are profiteering at your expense and mine and everyone else in the country as a result.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
I do know some of the details of various treaties but what is CO
I assumed it was an abbreviation for 'completely out'
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I uer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
My agent threw a little party for me, the other day, to coincide with the London Book Fair. I had to schmooze all my foreign agents and publishers. Most were continental Europeans, plus Brazilians and Chinese and Japan.
it was a quite unique chance to meet 20 different nationalities in one go. What struck me was just how foreign the Europeans were, how little they understood Britain (though they thought they did, through reading and watching English language media). Those with the best understanding of the UK were the Germans and the Dutch, and maybe the French, the further away you got - Finland, Hungary, Greece, the more foreign they became.
An Australian or even a Canadian would immediately have had a better sense of things than any of these people (with the possible exception of the Dutch and Germans, again).
It really is bizarre that we are in a union with Europe and not with the English speaking nations. Bizarre and quite sad, for all concerned. It's an unhappy family, with us as the grumpy but quite affluent uncle, resenting his handouts.
Apparently many Europeans can't comprehend Anglo-Saxon inheritance laws, where we can leave our money to whomever we choose. In their countries you can't disinherit family members.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
Who the hell knows. I am just a voter, not the PM.
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to change at all.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
It would depend if a new treaty was required.
As we saw last week in the Dutch referendum, a single state can obstruct a treaty for its own reasons (though a referendum post ratification does have a few wrinkles!)
Except that the EU is intent on entirely ignoring the Dutch vote. Because the EU just makes it up as it goes along (as you have to, in the real world, to be fair).
And that's what they'd do after Brexit, to secure the quickest move to free trade with iUK. The law is irrelevant.
If Wikipedia is correct - which it may not be - the treaty came into force at the end of January when the 28th EU country ratified it. (The Dutch having ratified it in 2015.)
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Indigo is scared that if we joined EFTA, than like Norway, Iceland and Swizerland then we'd be very happy with our new arrangement.
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
I do know some of the details of various treaties but what is CO
I assumed it was an abbreviation for 'completely out'
Thanks for that - helps in understanding the arguments if you know the abbreviations which there are many. Also their excessive use may well add to the public's confusion
"Sweden launches Phone a Random Swede hotline - but don't mention the chef Swedish tourism authority has invited anyone to phone a random Swedish person and have a conversation ... so we did"
What would our gross contribution look like if we joined EFTA?
Or are you hoping nobody notices that if we go up the route the Tory Leavers are certain to opt for that we will still be making a huge contribution to the EU as well as accepting freedom of movement.?
What would our contribution look like if we struck bi-laterals with the US, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Australia?
How about if we joined BEFTA? That's a new bloc - EFTA plus Blighty which accepts all EFTA trade deals except the EU?
Model the economic effect of the UK keeping it's contribution and handing it to each and every one of it's citizens. Over a cycle of, say three years, 2018-2020 - it's a stimulus of £30bn +. How does that compare, size-wise, to Darling/Brown in 2008?
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
Who the hell knows. I am just a voter, not the PM.
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to chance at all.
Corbyn Majority 2020 nailed on
It might happen, but I can't see it.
Simple solution:
1: Leave wins 2: Cameron likely resigns and is replaced by a Leaver or appoints a Leaver to head negotiations. 3: Said Leaver (likely Gove) negotiates a deal whereby we Leave the EU and join the EFTA. 4: Once negotiations are complete a new referendum is held to approve the EFTA deal. 5: The new deal is promoted by an alliance of both former Remain leaders and the major mainstream Leave leaders. 6: Almost all Remain voters and a very large proportion of Leave voters confirm EFTA membership. 7: We leave the EU and join the EFTA.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
Who the hell knows. I am just a voter, not the PM.
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to chance at all.
Corbyn Majority 2020 nailed on
It might happen, but I can't see it.
Simple solution:
1: Leave wins 2: Cameron likely resigns and is replaced by a Leaver or appoints a Leaver to head negotiations. 3: Said Leaver (likely Gove) negotiates a deal whereby we Leave the EU and join the EFTA. 4: Once negotiations are complete a new referendum is held to approve the EFTA deal. 5: The new deal is promoted by an alliance of both former Remain leaders and the major mainstream Leave leaders. 6: Almost all Remain voters and a very large proportion of Leave voters confirm EFTA membership. 7: We leave the EU and join the EFTA.
That fine. That isnt the what was being discussed. I opined that there was zero chance after a Leave vote that without further consultation that PM would decided that the EEA was the right solution because it would be electoral suicide.
Question: How many registered companies past and present are there out of this address (next to Finchley spiritualist church)? (hint: it is linked to THAT ADDRESS)
Wow: you've found the address of a company that creates companies.
Here are some of the company creation companies on Finchley Road: Creation-UK Ltd, A1 Companies Ltd, City & Dominion Registrars Ltd.
This will give you a flavour - there are companies registered at Winnington House, Woodberry House, will give you the Registered Office. Looks as if someone hasn't updated the data at Companies House, or the Returns haven't been made since formation. Nothing sinister.
Where would you deliver the post for all these companies for all 6 addresses in the picture I gave you earlier in this thread?!
You don't understand how Companies are formed do you?
Watford30 - the most clueless and humourless poster on PB - enough said.
Funny. You seem convinced that thousands of businesses are all running from a small flat in Finchley, yet the pages you link to show exactly the opposite. 0/10, stand in the corner.
You've just proved that you haven't even been following what I've been saying over the past 10 days! - the centre of the operation is THAT ADDRESS (788 790 Finchley Road). 2 Woodberry Grove is a conduit address along with 108 / 110 / 420 / 665 / 923 / 1033 and 1035 Finchley Road.
'Conduit' addresses? They're token addresses used by a Company Formations business.
And your 'mate' has spent/wasted 15 years on this, no doubt connecting newspaper articles pinned to grimy walls with lengths of string.
Its no wonder with people like you around Watford30 that this has gone on for the past 40 years, You couldn't see this going on even if the documents (companies house, company check etc) were laid in front of you, and many in the establishment are profiteering at your expense and mine and everyone else in the country as a result.
Strange. I clicked on the links you posted, and found the many different Registered Addresses of the companies, their named officers and other legal details. All in the public domain as required. The mind boggles as to what you see. Pink elephants?
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Robert, do you have feel for what our EU contribution might be if we joined EFTA/EEA? Ballpark, 50%, 10%? Apologies if it's far more complicated than that. I am also assuming that if we were not in the EU none of our contribution would be spent in the UK, is that correct?
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
It's only now you're asking this? ...
I went thru some of the options in a well-written but little-read post a few weeks ago. If you do Article whatchemacallit then you deal with the EU itself (not each individual country) and all have to agree (the other people in this thread will point out the errors in that statement, but go with that for the minute OK?). But there are other options. You can negotiate with the EU as a single entity, you can negotiate with a subset, or you can negotiate with each country individually. The question is how much time and money do you want to spend doing it.
The quickest and cheapest option is a UK-EU association agreement that just ratifies the existing arrangements in toto: if everyone agrees, you could get that written up in about six months and signed and ratified by most countries under enhanced cooperation in about 18 months and the whole shebang in about two-and-a-half years (all back-of-envelope stuff this, BTW).This option involves absolutely *no* savings and *no* change but sets up a legal framework of the UK outside the EU for later changes. Yay.
That's the easy part. But if you want to do more...
The more you want to change, the more resistance you will encounter and the more likely another country will object or hold its own referendum. Bear in mind most of the referenda that have derailed a Treaty in the past were accidental: the Danish referendum with Maastricht, the Irish referendum with Lisbon, Dutch with Ukraine, even (I think) the French referendum with Constitution were not predicted in result - there were those at the time who said Lisbon I wasn't Crotty-able,[1] but it went ahead and comedy ensued. The more changes you wish to make the more chance somebody will object, whether deliberately or accidental.
So the answer to your question is: it depends how many changes you want to make.
If you want a discussion of using pre-existing institutions (EEA/EFTA) as a wrapper as another way to enact rapid change, see Richard Tyndall who has done some work on this. Although I understand VLTC's recommendation is completely out so that may not be adopted.
[1] the case that found that treaty changes in Ireland required a referendum under certain circs
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Robert, do you have feel for what our EU contribution might be if we joined EFTA/EEA? Ballpark, 50%, 10%? Apologies if it's far more complicated than that. I am also assuming that if we were not in the EU none of our contribution would be spent in the UK, is that correct?
I think the base bill would be pretty small, probably a little over 1bn. Norway pays 300m in round terms and we have three times their GDP which it is based up. However that number can go up quite fast depending on how many EU projects you opt into, and Norway has opted into most of the because their elite would rather be in the EU, its just their voters don't agree.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
I understand that, and as I have said before I am in favour of EFTA for the first step. I just don't believe in selling the public a pig in a poke. At the moment they have a real choice, leave or remain, and they don't have to elect an idiot to get the choice they want. If only a fringe party offers one of the post leave options, it will never happen even if the voters are in favour, because they would rather stick pins in their eyes than saddle themselves with 5 years of a fringe party government. Imagine post BrExit the only party offer CO was the SNP
You've got to be cannier. Lie to the people, tell them we're going to EFTA and it will be fine and that's where we're staying with less free movement blah blah (when your real intention is total independence).
LIE. It is is how europhiles got us into the EU after all, so it would be ironical and delightful if a big fat lie was what got us OUT.
Isn't that exactly what Leave are doing already, trying to trick the anti-immigration voters to vote Leave on a false prospectus.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
Seems almost inevitable that someone won't like it and will veto it. It's going to have to be a very good deal from the EU perspective to get all 27 on board.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
Greed and Realpolitik means no one will veto though. The French, Italians and Spanish, and especially the Germans, will be desperate to secure their exports to the UK (just as the UK will be even more desperate to secure exports to the EU).
Any squiddling little country that threatens to upset the speedy negotiations will get told to STFU.
Money will decide. And money will say Make a deal, fast.
But one that will be very favourable to the EU if it is going to get all 27 on board without a veto..
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
The deal would be with the entire EU, and open to a blocking veto by any of the 27 countries.
Greed and Realpolitik means no one will veto though. The French, Italians and Spanish, and especially the Germans, will be desperate to secure their exports to the UK (just as the UK will be even more desperate to secure exports to the EU).
Any squiddling little country that threatens to upset the speedy negotiations will get told to STFU.
Money will decide. And money will say Make a deal, fast.
But one that will be very favourable to the EU if it is going to get all 27 on board without a veto..
I heard George Galloway and Gisela Stuart speak for Leave today. I thought Galloway was good and Gisela was hopeless. But the main point is that they were saying completely different things and they're both on the left. To the uninitiated Leave are looking shambolic
But, again - sigh - you have to explain how such a shambolic campaign is managing a DEAD HEAT in the polls.
I'd be interested - sincerely - in your explanation, as a one-time ad professional. Perhaps LEAVE is simply a better product, so even if the sales pitch is rubbish, people will still prefer it? Genuine question.
It's difficult to shift what people believe to be true. It looks like both Leave and Remain have been level pegging for a while. The only ones listening to both arguments at the moment- if anyone- are the undecideds and they're likely to be the last to make up their minds. It's in the interests of both sides to give a clear message. It could well be Leave have a better product in which case make their argument coherent and we can judge
Interesting, ta.
That's a better product than anything REMAIN are offering, and cogently presented by plausible people, would win, I think.
That's rather good. It sharpens my resolve to vote LEAVE (about 63% certainty, at the moment).
It also reminds me of someone. Written by Dan Hannan maybe? It has his fluent style.
It's excellent.
I also notice some of Carswell's favourite - Paul Kennedy: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
"Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains."
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
Who the hell knows. I am just a voter, not the PM.
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to change at all.
Corbyn Majority 2020 nailed on
It might happen, but I can't see it.
It is pretty rare for me to agree with Indigo, but I do.
The backlash that would happen to a government that allowed full freedom of movement as part of a deal would be terminal. Indeed it would very likely precipitate an early election.
At the very least there would have to be another referendum on the subject.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would like if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
You need the net contributions. And there is still a contribution if in the EEA, which every LEAVEr here wants
Everyone Leaver here (more or less) wants, but is very unlikely to happen because it would be electoral suicide.
Getting very confused here, are you saying it is "unlikely" we will join EFTA/EEA in the case of Brexit?
Who the hell knows. I am just a voter, not the PM.
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to chance at all.
Corbyn Majority 2020 nailed on
It might happen, but I can't see it.
Simple solution:
1: Leave wins 2: Cameron likely resigns and is replaced by a Leaver or appoints a Leaver to head negotiations. 3: Said Leaver (likely Gove) negotiates a deal whereby we Leave the EU and join the EFTA. 4: Once negotiations are complete a new referendum is held to approve the EFTA deal. 5: The new deal is promoted by an alliance of both former Remain leaders and the major mainstream Leave leaders. 6: Almost all Remain voters and a very large proportion of Leave voters confirm EFTA membership. 7: We leave the EU and join the EFTA.
Sounds very plausible but what happens if the referendum says no. I cannot see any circumstances of a second referendum to be honest. Also at which point does the EU agree and no doubt it will need an EU vote of approval of some kind
Any squiddling little country that threatens to upset the speedy negotiations will get told to STFU.
Before my battery dies, if you would like to share with the group how you intend telling the Hungarian, Greek or Romanian governments[1] to STFU in a way that will work, then you will make the entire Commission and all the other European governments very, very happy indeed...
[1] Or come to think of it, the Finns. And the Italians. And the Czechs...
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
It's only now you're asking this? ...
I went thru some of the options in a well-written but little-read post a few weeks ago. If you do Article whatchemacallit then you deal with the EU itself (not each individual country) and all have to agree (the other people in this thread will point out the errors in that statement, but go with that for the minute OK?). But there are other options. You can negotiate with the EU as a single entity, you can negotiate with a subset, or you can negotiate with each country individually. The question is how much time and money do you want to spend doing it.
The quickest and cheapest option is a UK-EU association agreement that just ratifies the existing arrangements in toto: if everyone agrees, you could get that written up in about six months and signed and ratified by most countries under enhanced cooperation in about 18 months and the whole shebang in about two-and-a-half years (all back-of-envelope stuff this, BTW).This option involves absolutely *no* savings and *no* change but sets up a legal framework of the UK outside the EU for later changes. Yay.
That's the easy part. But if you want to do more...
The more you want to change, the more resistance you will encounter and the more likely another country will object or hold its own referendum. Bear in mind most of the referenda that have derailed a Treaty in the past were accidental: the Danish referendum with Maastricht, the Irish referendum with Lisbon, Dutch with Ukraine, even (I think) the French referendum with Constitution were not predicted in result - there were those at the time who said Lisbon I wasn't Crotty-able,[1] but it went ahead and comedy ensued. The more changes you wish to make the more chance somebody will object, whether deliberately or accidental.
So the answer to your question is: it depends how many changes you want to make.
If you want a discussion of using pre-existing institutions (EEA/EFTA) as a wrapper as another way to enact rapid change, see Richard Tyndall who has done some work on this. Although I understand VLTC's recommendation is completely out so that may not be adopted.
[1] the case that found that treaty changes in Ireland required a referendum under certain circs
I understand your response but it does seem to be very complex and leave need to sell a relatively easy proposal for ordinary voters to understand
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
Any squiddling little country that threatens to upset the speedy negotiations will get told to STFU.
Before my battery dies, if you would like to share with the group how you intend telling the Hungarian, Greek or Romanian governments[1] to STFU in a way that will work, then you will make the entire Commission and all the other European governments very, very happy indeed...
[1] Or come to think of it, the Finns. And the Italians. And the Czechs...
"stuff their mouths with gold" is a strategy that has worked well in the past with self-interested parties seeking to undermine the common good.
In the circumstances that we leave does each EU country strike a deal with the UK or would it be agreed with the EU itself. In the event a deal is agreed would that deal need the unanimous ratification of all 27 EU countries.
It's only now you're asking this? ...
I went thru some of the options in a well-written but little-read post a few weeks ago. If you do Article whatchemacallit then you deal with the EU itself (not each individual country) and all have to agree (the other people in this thread will point out the errors in that statement, but go with that for the minute OK?). But there are other options. You can negotiate with the EU as a single entity, you can negotiate with a subset, or you can negotiate with each country individually. The question is how much time and money do you want to spend doing it.
The quickest and cheapest option is a UK-EU association agreement that just ratifies the existing arrangements in toto: if everyone agrees, you could get that written up in about six months and signed and ratified by most countries under enhanced cooperation in about 18 months and the whole shebang in about two-and-a-half years (all back-of-envelope stuff this, BTW).This option involves absolutely *no* savings and *no* change but sets up a legal framework of the UK outside the EU for later changes. Yay.
That's the easy part. But if you want to do more...
So the answer to your question is: it depends how many changes you want to make.
If you want a discussion of using pre-existing institutions (EEA/EFTA) as a wrapper as another way to enact rapid change, see Richard Tyndall who has done some work on this. Although I understand VLTC's recommendation is completely out so that may not be adopted.
[1] the case that found that treaty changes in Ireland required a referendum under certain circs
I understand your response but it does seem to be very complex and leave need to sell a relatively easy proposal for ordinary voters to understand
Disentangling all the treaties and agreements and writing new ones is never going to be short or easy.
For example I suspect the EU will favour a deal on manufactured exports, but drag its feet on financial services.
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
One of our Patrimonials has just come out for Leave, based on the sovereignty argument. As he was close enough to Heath to almost become a Cabinet-ranked GOAT before duty called him in other directions, I found this somewhat surprising.
What would our gross contribution look like if we joined EFTA?
Or are you hoping nobody notices that if we go up the route the Tory Leavers are certain to opt for that we will still be making a huge contribution to the EU as well as accepting freedom of movement.?
What would our contribution look like if we struck bi-laterals with the US, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Australia?
How about if we joined BEFTA? That's a new bloc - EFTA plus Blighty which accepts all EFTA trade deals except the EU?
Model the economic effect of the UK keeping it's contribution and handing it to each and every one of it's citizens. Over a cycle of, say three years, 2018-2020 - it's a stimulus of £30bn +. How does that compare, size-wise, to Darling/Brown in 2008?
Fine except you know and I know we are going to opt for EFTA so the rest are red herrings and obfuscation. . I'll take it then that you don't know or won't say.
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
Well quite and this is why the Leave campaign are still up against it.
Except that the kind of people who would change their mind on Brexit for £100 are obviously not THAT bothered by the EU, so therefore much less likely to vote.
This is LEAVE's not-so-secret weapon. Their voters are MOTIVATED.
No, it means they will probably vote for the side that they believe will be economically better for them.
As an aside, if you really hate the EU and wish its ultimate demise, EFTA/EEA is a much better destination than CO. After all, going to EFTA/EEA and retaining access to the single market is much less scary to a Sweden or to a Denmark than going it completely alone. Us making a success of EFTA/EEA would be quite likely to spark defections of non-EZ states, in a way CO wouldn't.
Robert, do you have feel for what our EU contribution might be if we joined EFTA/EEA? Ballpark, 50%, 10%? Apologies if it's far more complicated than that. I am also assuming that if we were not in the EU none of our contribution would be spent in the UK, is that correct?
I think the base bill would be pretty small, probably a little over 1bn. Norway pays 300m in round terms and we have three times their GDP which it is based up. However that number can go up quite fast depending on how many EU projects you opt into, and Norway has opted into most of the because their elite would rather be in the EU, its just their voters don't agree.
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had taken the podium yesterday and told the audience that he was votng LEAVE and redirecting the whole EU contribution saving to the NHS (on cancer treatments or dementia).
I reckon it's not beyond the realms of possibility that that move could've a) taken Britain out of Europe b) destroyed the Blairites in his party and c) won him the next GE.
Sounds nuts. But not as nuts as the thought of him leading the Labour party would've sounded 12 months ago?
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had taken the podium yesterday and told the audience that he was votng LEAVE and redirecting the whole EU contribution saving to the NHS (on cancer treatments or dementia).
I reckon it's not beyond the realms of possibility that that move could've a) taken Britain out of Europe b) destroyed the Blairites in his party and c) won him the next GE.
Sounds nuts. But not as nuts as the thought of him leading the Labour party would've sounded 12 months ago?
12 months ago all the polls were pointing to a hung parliament!
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
One of our Patrimonials has just come out for Leave, based on the sovereignty argument. As he was close enough to Heath to almost become a Cabinet-ranked GOAT before duty called him in other directions, I found this somewhat surprising.
One might say it is something you can afford to concern yourself with if you don't have more mundane concerns. In my view worrying about sovereignty is a luxury to most voters.
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
One of our Patrimonials has just come out for Leave, based on the sovereignty argument. As he was close enough to Heath to almost become a Cabinet-ranked GOAT before duty called him in other directions, I found this somewhat surprising.
Excellent news. But I'm not surprised.
There's been a lot of talk about those *currently* in Government backing Leave, but there are a lot of old hands who had very senior positions who've seen the light:
Lord Owen - Foreign Secretary (Labour) Norman Tebbit - Secretary for Trade & Industry (Conservative) Lord Lawson - Chancellor (Conservative) Lord Lamont - Chancellor (Conservative)
And, of course, Margaret Thatcher, Ex-PM (Conservative) during her retirement.
These are not small fry, nor are they nutters. They almost all started off as pro-EEC/EC.
They were, are and continue to be highly intelligent people, who rose almost to the very top of our national government.
The Catholic Church in England is recommending a Remain vote.
There were a few frothers who saw the Treaty of Rome as a Papist plot in the days before we joined. Maybe they are right!
Though I suspect that the boom in Catholic Church attendances by Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks, as well as Irish and Southern Europeans has more to do with it.
Does Ken Clarke think this stuff is actually helpful? Or is he now so old and gaga he doesn't realise this stuff simply shunts 1m Tory-hating lefties towards LEAVE?
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
IMHO, you're completely wrong about that. No big political change occurs because people think it will make them £2 a week better off.
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had taken the podium yesterday and told the audience that he was votng LEAVE and redirecting the whole EU contribution saving to the NHS (on cancer treatments or dementia).
I reckon it's not beyond the realms of possibility that that move could've a) taken Britain out of Europe b) destroyed the Blairites in his party and c) won him the next GE.
Sounds nuts. But not as nuts as the thought of him leading the Labour party would've sounded 12 months ago?
12 months ago all the polls were pointing to a hung parliament!
Only Jack's ARSE could be relied upon for accurate predictions 12 months ago. I remember by polling day Jack stood almost alone, brave, abandoned and yet stoic, in reassuring wailing Tories that EICEWNBPM. And wow, how right he was.
Don't think even he saw Jezza coming though!
The Jezza victory must still be one of the most miraculous, bananas, incomprehensible moments in world politics ever. Like ever, ever!!
Any squiddling little country that threatens to upset the speedy negotiations will get told to STFU.
Before my battery dies, if you would like to share with the group how you intend telling the Hungarian, Greek or Romanian governments[1] to STFU in a way that will work, then you will make the entire Commission and all the other European governments very, very happy indeed...
[1] Or come to think of it, the Finns. And the Italians. And the Czechs...
"stuff their mouths with gold" is a strategy that has worked well in the past with self-interested parties seeking to undermine the common good.
Nah, we tried that with the EU and it didn't help us
Does Ken Clarke think this stuff is actually helpful? Or is he now so old and gaga he doesn't realise this stuff simply shunts 1m Tory-hating lefties towards LEAVE?
I don't think so. The lefties that I know hate IDS, Gove and generic 'Tories' more than they hate Cameron. They do not want to swap Cameron for someone worse.
Does Ken Clarke think this stuff is actually helpful? Or is he now so old and gaga he doesn't realise this stuff simply shunts 1m Tory-hating lefties towards LEAVE?
Incredibly dim.
I am very rapidly losing patience with Cameron.
It seems like only last year that Cameron was telling us that the UK would be fine outside the EU. Oh wait, it was. He really is a clown.
I suspect that there are many tens of thousands of party members who would quit if they weren't so keen to sit it out, and vote against Osborne in any leadership election.
The Catholic Church in England is recommending a Remain vote.
There were a few frothers who saw the Treaty of Rome as a Papist plot in the days before we joined. Maybe they are right!
Though I suspect that the boom in Catholic Church attendances by Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks, as well as Irish and Southern Europeans has more to do with it.
The East Europeans don't have a vote.
But all the rest of the congregation that worships with them do.
(Though Maltese, Irish and Cypriots all can vote in this referendum)
The Catholic Church in England is recommending a Remain vote.
There were a few frothers who saw the Treaty of Rome as a Papist plot in the days before we joined. Maybe they are right!
Though I suspect that the boom in Catholic Church attendances by Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks, as well as Irish and Southern Europeans has more to do with it.
I have a Northern Ireland Protestant friend who genuinely does believe the EU is a papist plot to return Protestant countries to the fold.
When he first explained this to me - after three pints of beer and half a bottle of Scotch - I assume he was joking. He wasn't. He's deadly serious. His Leave vote is a vote against the Papacy.
The poll saddens me to see people value so lowly their nation's sovereignty.
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
One of our Patrimonials has just come out for Leave, based on the sovereignty argument. As he was close enough to Heath to almost become a Cabinet-ranked GOAT before duty called him in other directions, I found this somewhat surprising.
Excellent news. But I'm not surprised.
There's been a lot of talk about those *currently* in Government backing Leave, but there are a lot of old hands who had very senior positions who've seen the light:
Lord Owen - Foreign Secretary (Labour) Norman Tebbit - Secretary for Trade & Industry (Conservative) Lord Lawson - Chancellor (Conservative) Lord Lamont - Chancellor (Conservative)
And, of course, Margaret Thatcher, Ex-PM (Conservative) during her retirement.
These are not small fry, nor are they nutters. They almost all started off as pro-EEC/EC.
They were, are and continue to be highly intelligent people, who rose almost to the very top of our national government.
I would personally prefer to lose Lamont from the list, but the others are all intelligent people.
The Catholic Church in England is recommending a Remain vote.
There were a few frothers who saw the Treaty of Rome as a Papist plot in the days before we joined. Maybe they are right!
Though I suspect that the boom in Catholic Church attendances by Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks, as well as Irish and Southern Europeans has more to do with it.
But I think the seven years of low interest rates has not been good my generation
I was made to feel my age today.
I was bemoaning the fact that there was a generation of people in the City who didn't understand the concept of the cost of money because interest rates had been so low for so long.
Until she pointed out that she started her career in 2008...
I left uni in 2008 and started work in May, 2009. I have known nothing other than base interest rates of 0.5%.
Wow. That makes me feel old. I still think interest rates in single figures are a novelty and still remember ( if as a child) nigh on 27% inflation.
The thing is I am convinced 0.5% rates will be seen by future economic historians as a misguided policy which has warped lots of things ( pension costs, house prices/BTL) way out of shape to the detriment of both our generations.
Interesting to see that 9% of kippers would shift to Remain for £100 per year.
Not very solid support at all for what I would have thought would be the hardcore. The economics are going to swing it methinks.
It's fabulous for Leave. It shows that votes can be bought.
Remain have no money to buy votes.
Leave have £18bn in gross contributions to the EU to play with.
I wonder how economists' models would look if that £18bn was pushed into UK residents' pockets. What would be the prospects for domestic growth and jobs?
What would our gross contribution look like if we joined EFTA?
Or are you hoping nobody notices that if we go up the route the Tory Leavers are certain to opt for that we will still be making a huge contribution to the EU as well as accepting freedom of movement.?
EFTA contributions to the EU are based on calculation of GDP. Norway pays about £500 million annually to the EU via the EEA. The UK economy is about 5.3 times bigger than the Norwegian economy so our total net payment should be around £2.6 billion a year.
Between a third and a quarter of our current net payment. Or about a sixth of the amount of money we give to the EU to spend.
Does Ken Clarke think this stuff is actually helpful? Or is he now so old and gaga he doesn't realise this stuff simply shunts 1m Tory-hating lefties towards LEAVE?
I don't think so. The lefties that I know hate IDS, Gove and generic 'Tories' more than they hate Cameron. They do not want to swap Cameron for someone worse.
What utter bollocks. The Lefties I know HATE Cameron and Osborne ("just too punchable" someone described them to me, recently). They epitomise the loathed and gilded Etonian elite.
The fact Brexit would mean the rich Tory PM and the rich Tory Chancellor would have to resign in shame would wholly outweigh the minimal irritation that someone called Gove *might* replace them (and this is unlikely anyway).
That voters might just want to kick Tories in the nuts is a big risk for REMAIN (as they know). Ken Clarke has just added to that risk. The man is a fool, who has lost his political antennae.
Gove is far less popular than vanilla Cameron. The idea of being stuck with a bunch of Eurosceptic loons is a real threat.
Comments
But your friend is guilty of the most common psychological flaw of all: confirmation bias. He's searching for any company formed at that address with dodgy shit, and using that to tar all companies formed there. (Of which there are hundreds of thousands.)
It's just a company formation company. Nothing more, nothing less. He's seeing conspiracy where there is none.
Come on, say what you really mean: I, Indigo, hate EFTA/EEA because I think that -like the Norwegians- the British might like it. And if they like it, we'll never achieve my ultimate goal, utter and complete exit from the stinking sink of rotting flesh that is continental Europe.
'I see our esteemed Chancellor has told us that mortgage rates might go up if we leave the EU. I say bring it on.'
With the possible exception of Lord Rose telling us to expect pay increases if we leave the EU, the everything is going to crash & burn stuff is wearing a bit thin now.
Still I guess we haven't been told yet about the plague we can expect after BREXIT.
1) Why has no one taken Mr Bowden to court since the Andrea Davison case if he's spreading falsehoods as you say?
2) Why has the BBC not acted on his dossier of evidence since March 2015? (hint BBC senior execs involved in the fraud)
3) My sources tell me that all 650 MP's have been informed about this and none choose to speak out - why?
In the last 2 answers you've directly contradicated yourself and I quote: "There have undoubtedly been companies created at that address that have been used for fraudulent purposes, and your friend deserves credit for discovering them" and "There's no theft and money laundering going on there."
'The pitch would be "This is where we will go, for the next few years, as we work out trade deals, to keep things absolutely stable: into EFTA. Free movement will continue, free trade will continue.
"But from the moment we vote LEAVE all things become possible, we can end EU immigration in total if you, the voter, so decide that, in the next General Election. We can leave the ECHR. We will be out of the hated CAP and CFP. The ECJ will no longer rule over us. And none of this is possible, none of this will happen, if we REMAIN, and if we REMAIN things could get a whole lot WORSE."
It's an excellent holding position that guarantees stability and gives whatever time is required to negotiate trade agreements & when these are completed a further referendum can be held.
The bill will become very real.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3237073/Cameron-Osborne-quietly-pay-1-7BILLION-bill-Brussels-dismisses-totally-unacceptable.html
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Therefore, EFTA must be taken off the table, and we must go to CO, because once we have the same arrangement that Norway has, then we'll begin to like it like Norwegians do (80% in favour of their current arrangement continuing). To Indigo, EFTA is the end of the road, and as we won't be CO, it will be a disaster.
I don't know, maybe there was something unclear about my post fifteen minutes ago
I wonder what the price would be for total surrender of sovereignty? £249?
As we saw last week in the Dutch referendum, a single state can obstruct a treaty for its own reasons (though a referendum post ratification does have a few wrinkles!)
If we were to join the EFTA then it may not even need that much since the agreement is already in place and we'd just need EFTA members agreement to join their club.
Or are you hoping nobody notices that if we go up the route the Tory Leavers are certain to opt for that we will still be making a huge contribution to the EU as well as accepting freedom of movement.?
But look at the politics. If Leave wins, with say 52% of the vote, almost all of which will be people who have concerns about either sovereignty or immigration, it is going to be a brave, and rather brief, PM that says, no actually on reflection I think you are wrong, we are going to stay in the EEA with the four freedoms, we will carry on paying for pretty much all the same stuff because we will opt into all the programs like good citizens, and not much is actually going to change at all.
Corbyn Majority 2020 nailed on
It might happen, but I can't see it.
"Sweden launches Phone a Random Swede hotline - but don't mention the chef
Swedish tourism authority has invited anyone to phone a random Swedish person and have a conversation ... so we did"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/08/sweden-launches-phone-a-random-swede-hotline-but-dont-mention-the-chef
How about if we joined BEFTA? That's a new bloc - EFTA plus Blighty which accepts all EFTA trade deals except the EU?
Model the economic effect of the UK keeping it's contribution and handing it to each and every one of it's citizens. Over a cycle of, say three years, 2018-2020 - it's a stimulus of £30bn +. How does that compare, size-wise, to Darling/Brown in 2008?
1: Leave wins
2: Cameron likely resigns and is replaced by a Leaver or appoints a Leaver to head negotiations.
3: Said Leaver (likely Gove) negotiates a deal whereby we Leave the EU and join the EFTA.
4: Once negotiations are complete a new referendum is held to approve the EFTA deal.
5: The new deal is promoted by an alliance of both former Remain leaders and the major mainstream Leave leaders.
6: Almost all Remain voters and a very large proportion of Leave voters confirm EFTA membership.
7: We leave the EU and join the EFTA.
I went thru some of the options in a well-written but little-read post a few weeks ago. If you do Article whatchemacallit then you deal with the EU itself (not each individual country) and all have to agree (the other people in this thread will point out the errors in that statement, but go with that for the minute OK?). But there are other options. You can negotiate with the EU as a single entity, you can negotiate with a subset, or you can negotiate with each country individually. The question is how much time and money do you want to spend doing it.
The quickest and cheapest option is a UK-EU association agreement that just ratifies the existing arrangements in toto: if everyone agrees, you could get that written up in about six months and signed and ratified by most countries under enhanced cooperation in about 18 months and the whole shebang in about two-and-a-half years (all back-of-envelope stuff this, BTW).This option involves absolutely *no* savings and *no* change but sets up a legal framework of the UK outside the EU for later changes. Yay.
That's the easy part. But if you want to do more...
The more you want to change, the more resistance you will encounter and the more likely another country will object or hold its own referendum. Bear in mind most of the referenda that have derailed a Treaty in the past were accidental: the Danish referendum with Maastricht, the Irish referendum with Lisbon, Dutch with Ukraine, even (I think) the French referendum with Constitution were not predicted in result - there were those at the time who said Lisbon I wasn't Crotty-able,[1] but it went ahead and comedy ensued. The more changes you wish to make the more chance somebody will object, whether deliberately or accidental.
So the answer to your question is: it depends how many changes you want to make.
If you want a discussion of using pre-existing institutions (EEA/EFTA) as a wrapper as another way to enact rapid change, see Richard Tyndall who has done some work on this. Although I understand VLTC's recommendation is completely out so that may not be adopted.
[1] the case that found that treaty changes in Ireland required a referendum under certain circs
Seems almost inevitable that someone won't like it and will veto it. It's going to have to be a very good deal from the EU perspective to get all 27 on board.
I also notice some of Carswell's favourite - Paul Kennedy: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:
"Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains."
The backlash that would happen to a government that allowed full freedom of movement as part of a deal would be terminal. Indeed it would very likely precipitate an early election.
At the very least there would have to be another referendum on the subject.
[1] Or come to think of it, the Finns. And the Italians. And the Czechs...
"Sovereignty" means b*gger all to most voters, they are far more concerned with more mundane issues. I genuinely believe most people would go with whatever was best for them and their families and wouldn't be much concerned with whether it was because of decisions made in Brussels or London. I suspect most people would readily become the 51st state of America and be ruled from Washington if it meant an improved standard of living.
For example I suspect the EU will favour a deal on manufactured exports, but drag its feet on financial services.
No, it means they will probably vote for the side that they believe will be economically better for them.
I reckon it's not beyond the realms of possibility that that move could've a) taken Britain out of Europe b) destroyed the Blairites in his party and c) won him the next GE.
Sounds nuts. But not as nuts as the thought of him leading the Labour party would've sounded 12 months ago?
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/5437/0/cardinal-nichols-uk-would-face-problems-if-it-left-the-eu
Cardinal Nichols was speaking in a personal capacity.
There's been a lot of talk about those *currently* in Government backing Leave, but there are a lot of old hands who had very senior positions who've seen the light:
Lord Owen - Foreign Secretary (Labour)
Norman Tebbit - Secretary for Trade & Industry (Conservative)
Lord Lawson - Chancellor (Conservative)
Lord Lamont - Chancellor (Conservative)
And, of course, Margaret Thatcher, Ex-PM (Conservative) during her retirement.
These are not small fry, nor are they nutters. They almost all started off as pro-EEC/EC.
They were, are and continue to be highly intelligent people, who rose almost to the very top of our national government.
Though I suspect that the boom in Catholic Church attendances by Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks, as well as Irish and Southern Europeans has more to do with it.
"Teach three-year-olds about sex and fertility, say experts"
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/15/teach-three-year-olds-sex-education-experts-fertility-reproduction
Don't think even he saw Jezza coming though!
The Jezza victory must still be one of the most miraculous, bananas, incomprehensible moments in world politics ever. Like ever, ever!!
https://twitter.com/JPooleSmith/status/720738166647427072
I suspect that there are many tens of thousands of party members who would quit if they weren't so keen to sit it out, and vote against Osborne in any leadership election.
(Though Maltese, Irish and Cypriots all can vote in this referendum)
When he first explained this to me - after three pints of beer and half a bottle of Scotch - I assume he was joking. He wasn't. He's deadly serious. His Leave vote is a vote against the Papacy.
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/720628205321863169
Let's party like it's 1958!
The thing is I am convinced 0.5% rates will be seen by future economic historians as a misguided policy which has warped lots of things ( pension costs, house prices/BTL) way out of shape to the detriment of both our generations.
Between a third and a quarter of our current net payment. Or about a sixth of the amount of money we give to the EU to spend.