His comments today about the “bogeyman” approach adopted by the Remain campaign are well timed and accurate. And it says a great deal about how little confidence the Remain camp have in their own arguments.
Why waste time on inventing imaginary and hypothetical scenarios to attack when they have the wonderful, positive, life-affirming reality of life in the EU all around them?
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
We are guest staying in a hotel, for which we pay a good chunk of cash which is a significant help to keeping them in business, but in return we get a good maid service, access to the business suite, and being able to talk to the other residents in the bar is useful.
And the reason we are staying at the hotel at all is because it is the site of the largest Trade Fair in the World.
All of our customers and suppliers visit the fair. As guests, we have free entry to the fair. If we leave the hotel, we would have to pay an entry fee, we wouldn't have a stand, and not everyone would want to sign a deal with us out the back behind the bins.
1. Donald keeps up the pressure - the Donald needs to make it as difficult for the Republicans to dump him as possible. Even if the required 1,237 delegates prove out of reach, Trump needs to push as hard as possible. The RNC won't risk a stitch up if it is likely to fail anyway. 2. Trump outperformed the polls - although more pronounced in caucuses, Trump has still underperformed the polls in primaries throughout the campaign. Last night polls put him on 52-56%; he achieved 60%. This will reassure backers that Trump can go on to convert polling leads in other states, without worrying that his position is weaker than it seems. 3. Trump is likely to win big in PA - alongside 17 delegates which are bound to the winner of the state, Pennsylvania will elect 54 delegates who will go to the Convention unbound. These delegates are asked to bear the primary election result in mind - but Cruz had been confident of peeling some or even most of them away. If Trump can up his vote share, he'll make Cruz's job much more difficult - and smooth his route to the nomination. 4. From New York to LA - California will elect on the last day of primaries, and carries the most of any state - 172 delegates. It now seems inevitable that the winner's line for Trump will fall somewhere between 0 and 172 delegates - so registered Republicans will go to the polls knowing this is a make it or break it moment (even as California is a blue state). That adds a level of complexity which seems to have largely avoided comment, but will be key. 5. A Cruzifiction - on poor turf, Cruz had hoped to pick up a coalition of evangelicals and Rubio's share of wealthy and highly educated Republicans to the anti-Trump cause. Hoisted by his own petard over "New York Values" there is not a single cross break that reads well for the Texan senator. Cruz will need to draw a line under the state so that expected poor results next week don't push him out the race completely and give him space to rebound on the west coast. 6. No way in for Kasich: Kasich supporters had been hopeful that - however unlikely - that his result in New York could boost him to competitive results elsewhere in the north east and strengthen his credibility as a candidate at the Convention. Save for home turf in Ohio, and a strong performance in Vermont, Kasich will have been roundly beaten everywhere. It becomes ever more difficult to market a proven loser.
Don't think any of the 5 states voting on April 26th will much value him either and 3 are winner takes all. I think after that he will be out of sight and the only question will be if he wins outright.
Could still come down to California.
Both of you are undoubtedly right, Trump's ability to close this out will fall between 0 and 172 delegates in CA. It's been likely for a while.
There will be two Trump takes most states next week, plus winner takes all in Connecticut and the rump 17 in PA
I mean Delaware not connecticut
Although Connecticut is 50% WTA, so given the NY result I expect Trump to take all the delegates there. Trump impressively strong in Long Island as polls suggested, also suggests Trump will sweep Long Island in the generals, first time since 88 to make NY some way competitive. http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-could-lose-to-trump-in-democratic-new-york/
New York "some way competitive" - You're having a giraffe.
The latest RCP average of the last six polls in New York has Trump losing his home state to Clinton by 21.2 points which of course is "some way competitive" in the same way as Aston Villa are competitive to win the Champion League next season.
Don't think any of the 5 states voting on April 26th will much value him either and 3 are winner takes all. I think after that he will be out of sight and the only question will be if he wins outright.
Could still come down to California.
Both of you are undoubtedly right, Trump's ability to close this out will fall between 0 and 172 delegates in CA. It's been likely for a while.
There will be two Trump takes most states next week, plus winner takes all in Connecticut and the rump 17 in PA
I mean Delaware not connecticut
Although Connecticut is 50% WTA, so given the NY result I expect Trump to take all the delegates there. Trump impressively strong in Long Island as polls suggested, also suggests Trump will sweep Long Island in the generals, first time since 88 to make NY some way competitive. http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-could-lose-to-trump-in-democratic-new-york/
Interesting Sam Wang is using my neighbouring counties method to look at IN. As with Florida etc. I think NY showed closed primaries don't hurt Trump at all, that IN is open to Dem troublemakers is a concern. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/04/18/gop-update-pre-new-york/
Except Indiana Rep and Dem primaries are on the same day - and Dem troublemakers are busy trying to knock Hillary off her perch by voting Sanders....
Big, big win for Trump last night and a wipeout for Cruz in one of the larger states in the Union. The stories of Trump having stalled, self-destructed etc are looking somewhat exaggerated this morning and he will be back to his boisterous self in the next few contests. A lot depends on how decisively he wins California but I think he still has a decent chance of reaching 1237.
For Hillary it is a good solid win which will hopefully stop the rot but she was a long way from smashing Sanders out of the park. Her road to victory still looks a bit of a slog rather than a procession.
In November I think it will be much closer than the odds seem to be indicating. A 72% chance of a Clinton win is ridiculous.
When push comes to shove, a lot of Republicans who say that they'll never vote for Trump in November at the moment probably will.
1. One wonders how many "wake up" calls are needed. 2. I hadn't realised that Kerry had said that the migration crisis threatened to destroy Europe. I wonder if as much attention will be paid to those remarks as to whatever Obama says on his forthcoming visit.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
@DPJHodges: Over past month, (supposedly a good month for Leave), there have been 23 polls. 15 have had Remain ahead, 5 Leave ahead, 3 have been ties.
The 10/10 numbers within the polls (usually at realistic turnout levels) are very promising for leave, and how many Outs had we seen in Scotland at this stage?
Remain's message has been banged home for an eternity, and it's still behind in some polls.
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The detail is the key here, the total number of people in employment rose but the number of inactive people fell faster, usually that is a sign that people who were previously discouraged are actively seeking work and is a good sign of reducing long term unemployment.
On topic, I wish sanders would quit already. He isn't going to win and the efforts of his supporters to think they have a shot still is getting a little sad. Though I suppose he's having fun.
Sanders will stay through to the convention and try and influence the platform. His next big decision is whether he dials down the rhetoric following more defeats next Tuesday in the closed primaries of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Delaware. Sanders has a shot at the open contest in Rhode Island but it'll be small consolation.
I'd agree with all that.
Worth also remembering that the flip side of all those superdelegates is that technically, Hillary won't win a definitive majority off bound delegates alone before the convention. As such, Sanders can legitimately continue to campaign on the notional argument that he could persuade the supers to change their mind - and the real one that his continued presence will influence the debate. Which is, after all, exactly what Hillary did in 2008 in a near-identical position.
Sanders campaign manager has said he expects to flip the Supers !! - Laughable drivel. Sanders race was done early on when he failed to capture the minority vote and Clinton built up a comfortable lead that Sanders has only managed to chip away at from time to time and then often lose again in big blue states.
The Supers are for Clinton for two reasons - Firstly she was the front runner and likely overall winner but secondly and usually overlooked is that the Clinton's have huge hinterland in the party, supporting candidates nationwide and raising hundreds of millions of dollars over the decades. In contrast Sanders is a semi-detached figure.
More than semi-detatched: his career has been wholly outside the Democrats until this presidential race!
But he'll keep fighting because that's what he's in the race to do - the supers just give him the excuse and Hillary's decision to do likewise in 2008 means she's in a poor position to criticise.
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The detail is the key here, the total number of people in employment rose but the number of inactive people fell faster, usually that is a sign that people who were previously discouraged are actively seeking work and is a good sign of reducing long term unemployment.
Absolutely right, Max. I find the lack of focus on discouraged workers in employment statistics extremely annoying.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
Big, big win for Trump last night and a wipeout for Cruz in one of the larger states in the Union. The stories of Trump having stalled, self-destructed etc are looking somewhat exaggerated this morning and he will be back to his boisterous self in the next few contests. A lot depends on how decisively he wins California but I think he still has a decent chance of reaching 1237.
For Hillary it is a good solid win which will hopefully stop the rot but she was a long way from smashing Sanders out of the park. Her road to victory still looks a bit of a slog rather than a procession.
In November I think it will be much closer than the odds seem to be indicating. A 72% chance of a Clinton win is ridiculous.
When push comes to shove, a lot of Republicans who say that they'll never vote for Trump in November at the moment probably will.
Some will, a lot won't. Trump is a populist, shooting from the mouth. His banning muslims, building a wall round Mexico stuff doesn't play well with the many well-off professional GOP voters in and around the big metropolitan areas. The neocons are not going to go for him either, HRC is far more in tune with their world view.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
His comments today about the “bogeyman” approach adopted by the Remain campaign are well timed and accurate. And it says a great deal about how little confidence the Remain camp have in their own arguments.
Why waste time on inventing imaginary and hypothetical scenarios to attack when they have the wonderful, positive, life-affirming reality of life in the EU all around them?
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
Leave did not say that. This is blatant spin by Remain.
You really exaggerate the difference, as the Treasury did recently also. es you some idea about what EU trade deals are really all about.
I think this is what it all comes down to.
If you think the single market, as it's currently constituted, is Britain's economic future, that it should be deepened in services, not lightened, and, therefore, even having 1/28th of the say in the rules is better than none, plus you're doing well, don't want any short-term economic disruption and you're not too bothered by concepts of sovereignty or politics, then you're probably going to be for Remain.
If, however, you think the UK's future is global, that the EU will form an ever shrinking proportion of our trade, that it increasingly be dominated by the eurozone, outvoting the UK, that the limited influence we'll retain doesn't compensate for the shared powers the EU has over the UK with its permanent QMV majority, and that it makes sense for the UK to be represented on global bodies itself independently and able to control its own trade deals, that you're confident an independent UK can be just as successful as other smaller anglosphere nations, controlling both its own laws and borders, even if this causes some short term disruption to the existing economic order, but you feel it has to be done and it won't be that bad, then you're probably going to be for Leave.
Very nice summary indeed, except I would add to the Remainers that they believe they have plenty of sovereignty as things stand.
There are so many flaws in the Treasury analysis you could write another 200 page document outlining them. It's an intellectually very dishonest piece of work.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade. [snip for length]
Very interesting post - thanks, Runnymede. There is significant opposition to TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic, but FWIW my impression is that it's more real in the US. In Europe, the centre-right is in favour, and the centre-left is putting up a show of scepticism but will probably settle for tweaks and reassurances in the end. The hard left and hard right are against, but don't have the firepower in any of the EU institutions to block a deal.
The US position is more problematic. Sanders has forced Clinton into a treaty-sceptic position, and the GOP in general and Trump in particular are wary of dealings with nasty foreigners. If Clinton wins (probable) but doesn't have a working majority in Congress (almost certain), it's hard to see her getting it through.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
An increase of 21k over three months in a workforce of 40m or so is basically stable. The earnings figures are more meaningful but not really that far out of line with recent stats.
The month-on-month (or Q-on-Q) changes aren't that meaningful anyway; better to use the change on this time last year.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
On Hollyrood for a minute, Labour are going to oppose Trident and the SNP are going to raise taxes on the middle classes. Should be a good opportunity for the Tories to capitalise and push for second place and for Ruth to become LOTO.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
I'm a big fan of TTIP, and I'm quite shocked how many of my fellow Leavers (I'm thinking of you Mr Tyndall) hate it.
What the view of that nice, cuddly and fellow LEAVE supporter President Putin on TTIP? ....
You think 'too weak and too feeble' Brits should take any notice of Putin?
Most of us are intelligent enough to ignore him, Bill Gates and the various other Yanks and busybodies interfering in a decision that is for us alone to make.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade. [snip for length]
Very interesting post - thanks, Runnymede. There is significant opposition to TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic, but FWIW my impression is that it's more real in the US. In Europe, the centre-right is in favour, and the centre-left is putting up a show of scepticism but will probably settle for tweaks and reassurances in the end. The hard left and hard right are against, but don't have the firepower in any of the EU institutions to block a deal.
The US position is more problematic. Sanders has forced Clinton into a treaty-sceptic position, and the GOP in general and Trump in particular are wary of dealings with nasty foreigners. If Clinton wins (probable) but doesn't have a working majority in Congress (almost certain), it's hard to see her getting it through.
Nick - if the IFO are even half right the political economy implications are very significant, from several angles. I suspect opposition will grow - for all the wrong reasons I am afraid i.e. the deal will be big threat to some seriously entrenched economic and political special interests.
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
His comments today about the “bogeyman” approach adopted by the Remain campaign are well timed and accurate. And it says a great deal about how little confidence the Remain camp have in their own arguments.
Why waste time on inventing imaginary and hypothetical scenarios to attack when they have the wonderful, positive, life-affirming reality of life in the EU all around them?
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
Leave did not say that. This is blatant spin by Remain.
.................
From the FT:-
"Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine” in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit in June’s referendum, according to a vision outlined on Tuesday by Michael Gove."
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
I'm a big fan of TTIP, and I'm quite shocked how many of my fellow Leavers (I'm thinking of you Mr Tyndall) hate it.
There are probably some aspects of it that are objectionable. But if the IFO estimates are robust, Eurosceptics should be embracing the concept of it, in broad terms at least.
Moreover, as noted, the estimates also show how distorted and suboptimal our current trading pattern is.
1. Donald keeps up the pressure - the Donald needs to make it as difficult for the Republicans to dump him as possible. Even if the required 1,237 delegates prove out of reach, Trump needs to push as hard as possible. The RNC won't risk a stitch up if it is likely to fail anyway. 2. Trump outperformed the polls - although more pronounced in caucuses, Trump has still underperformed the polls in primaries throughout the campaign. Last night polls put him on 52-56%; he achieved 60%. This will reassure backers that Trump can go on to convert polling leads in other states, without worrying that his position is weaker than it seems. 3. Trump is likely to win big in PA - alongside 17 delegates which are bound to the winner of the state, Pennsylvania will elect 54 delegates who will go to the Convention unbound. These delegates are asked to bear the primary election result in mind - but Cruz had been confident of peeling some or even most of them away. If Trump can up his vote share, he'll make Cruz's job much more difficult - and smooth his route to the nomination. 4. From New York to LA - California will elect on the last day of primaries, and carries the most of any state - 172 delegates. It now seems inevitable that the winner's line for Trump will fall somewhere between 0 and 172 delegates - so registered Republicans will go to the polls knowing this is a make it or break it moment (even as California is a blue state). That adds a level of complexity which seems to have largely avoided comment, but will be key. 5. A Cruzifiction - on poor turf, Cruz had hoped to pick up a coalition of evangelicals and Rubio's share of wealthy and highly educated Republicans to the anti-Trump cause. Hoisted by his own petard over "New York Values" there is not a single cross break that reads well for the Texan senator. Cruz will need to draw a line under the state so that expected poor results next week don't push him out the race completely and give him space to rebound on the west coast. 6. No way in for Kasich: Kasich supporters had been hopeful that - however unlikely - that his result in New York could boost him to competitive results elsewhere in the north east and strengthen his credibility as a candidate at the Convention. Save for home turf in Ohio, and a strong performance in Vermont, Kasich will have been roundly beaten everywhere. It becomes ever more difficult to market a proven loser.
We should keep those unbound Penn delegates in mind, I think. If Trump is >1200 they could push him over the line.
It certainly is, and substantially faster than Hansen originally predicted back in 1981. The enormity of its potential impact on future generations certainly puts our current quibbles about politics and trade into perspective.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The detail is the key here, the total number of people in employment rose but the number of inactive people fell faster, usually that is a sign that people who were previously discouraged are actively seeking work and is a good sign of reducing long term unemployment.
Good point. Also encouraging to see the drop in longer term unemployment.
"268,000 people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 16,000 fewer than for a year earlier
•467,000 people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 156,000 fewer than for a year earlier"
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
I'm a big fan of TTIP, and I'm quite shocked how many of my fellow Leavers (I'm thinking of you Mr Tyndall) hate it.
What the view of that nice, cuddly and fellow LEAVE supporter President Putin on TTIP? ....
You think 'too weak and too feeble' Brits should take any notice of Putin?
I certainly think I'd decline taking tea with President Putin at the Millennium Hotel any time soon. The atmosphere would be poison and my holiday plans for the Crimea have been put on hold for a few decades.
Just a blip I hope. Ozzy will soon fix it. Or is it down to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The detail is the key here, the total number of people in employment rose but the number of inactive people fell faster, usually that is a sign that people who were previously discouraged are actively seeking work and is a good sign of reducing long term unemployment.
Good point. Also encouraging to see the drop in longer term unemployment.
"268,000 people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 16,000 fewer than for a year earlier
•467,000 people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 156,000 fewer than for a year earlier"
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
Its all getting like the secret oil fields off the west coast of Scoltand that the SNP used to bang on about during ScotRef.
I think Trump will do a deal with Kasich to try and get Ohio and to bring more of the party together. It will also help his "moderate" credentials to have him on the ticket.
Yes, that would be an niteresting potential game-changer. Kasich has ruled it out - indeed he's highly non-committal about supporting Trump at all - but in the words of the Danish PM accused of a U-turn, "One has a position until one has a different one". If Trump did a mock-humble speech where he acknowledged that maybe he'd gone too far sometimes, and he was willing to listen to advice from his good friend Kasich, that might do the trick. Kasich would need to live down a lot of scorn from friends and allies, but being VP is a heart-beat away, etc.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
This is incredibly patronising besides the fact that Bill Gates is not as far as I'm aware an expert on the EU and doesn't even live here!
Not fully understanding the complexities of the EU many people were always going to listen to what others have to say. Many, I expect, will conclude that the G20, BOE, Obama, IMF, all the UK Party leaders except Farage etc are more likely to be correct in their assessment than Boris, Gove and Farage. If the weight of opinion is that individuals will be worse off out they all vote accordingly.
on 1) Completely correct 2) The common theme is that polls seem to very often understate the winner it seems. 3) This survey of PA's delegates looks broadly encouraging for Trump http://tinyurl.com/zcb5v6a. I'd assume a worst case working figure of 40 delegates perhaps for him (Providing he wins) 4) California is a state that requires alot of organisation ! Trump will need to do better here than previous places that have needed organisation - but if you go off Arizona and Nevada, I think he's definitely favourite. Cruz will pick up some delegates in rural parts though... a hard state to model. 5) Yes, getting zero delegates and third in New York is not a good look for Cruz, and the extent of the rout could do him further harm in the North East as anti-Trump voters consider Kasich perhaps more than they would. 6) Kasich has been dead for a while - his continued candidacy is a mixed bag though... from a quick fag packet analysis I think he hinders Trump/helps him in the following states:
(Since the contest is now essentially Trump vs 1237, hindering Trump is 'close enough' to helping Cruz, even if Kasich denies him some delegates...)
Indiana - Helps (WTA2) - A big help potentially..
Maryland - Helps (WTA2) Delaware - Helps (WTA)
Pennsylvania - Probably helps - this might be the only state where Cruz not running could flip it Kasich in theory though (WTA)
Nebraska - Could help, surely a Cruz state though. Washington - Could help at the margins (Cruz sweep is easier without Kasich) Montana - Could help at the margins, unlikely to be relevant South Dakota - Could help, surely a Cruz state though.
California - Could help, could hinder, this is very hard to judge ! Probably ends up making ~ zilch difference.
New Jersey (WTA, Kasich likely 2nd I think)- Could hinder, surely this is Trump territory though.
Conneticut - Hinders (Trump vs 50%) Rhode Island - Hinders (PR) West Virginia - Hinders (AL2) (I think !) Oregon - Hinders (Proportional) New Mexico - Hinders (Proportional)
Kasich cost Trump 5 delegates in New York, but may well have given him 3 in Wisconsin I think.
Overall I think Kasich helps Trump marginally, his effect in Indiana could be big even if he only scores around 15% or so.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
I grew up in Australia. It is the UK with sunshine. The idea that the French are closer culturally is for the fairies.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Tbh, I'm a "citizen of the Empire" if you go back far enough so I'll always feel more affinity to other ex-colonies that Europe.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
While you don't have to go even a quarter as far back for the Americans to be English, what's your point?
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
I grew up in Australia. It is the UK with sunshine. The idea that the French are closer culturally is for the fairies.
I went backpacking one score years ago. I got the impression Australia was very similiar to the UK, less afraid to call a spade a spade perhaps Definitely more blunt
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
American Independence was based upon exercising the aspirations of liberty of Englishmen.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Couldn't disagree more, I've more affinity with India than France. I'm a strong Anglophile.
His comments today about the “bogeyman” approach adopted by the Remain campaign are well timed and accurate. And it says a great deal about how little confidence the Remain camp have in their own arguments.
Why waste time on inventing imaginary and hypothetical scenarios to attack when they have the wonderful, positive, life-affirming reality of life in the EU all around them?
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
Leave did not say that. This is blatant spin by Remain.
.................
From the FT:-
"Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine” in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit in June’s referendum, according to a vision outlined on Tuesday by Michael Gove."
Where's the "blatant spin"?
You've answered your own question; it's from the Financial Times.
Quoting from the FT to support Remain is like quoting from the Daily Express to support Leave:
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Tbh, I'm a "citizen of the Empire" if you go back far enough so I'll always feel more affinity to other ex-colonies that Europe.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
If you're referring to the 1066 conquest, you're wrong. How wrong? Let me count the ways: 1) It was not a French conquest, it was a Norman one. 2) The upper class changed. It wasn't a whole new people, just a new dynasty and some earls. 3) The general composition of the population (Anglo-Saxon) was unchanged, barring a few nobles. There was no mass migration. 4) England was/is comprised of native Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the odd Viking. Wales and Scotland are Celtic, likewise Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eagles, I don't believe something because the shaman says so, and don't disbelieve it because the poison dwarf says so. I'm quite content to make up my own mind instead of contracting out my critical faculties to Ecclestone, Putin, Cameron or Obama.
You really exaggerate the difference, as the Treasury did recently also. es you some idea about what EU trade deals are really all about.
I think this is what it all comes down to.
If you think the single market, as it's currently constituted, is Britain's economic future, that it should be deepened in services, not lightened, and, therefore, even having 1/28th of the say in the rules is better than none, plus you're doing well, don't want any short-term economic disruption and you're not too bothered by concepts of sovereignty or politics, then you're probably going to be for Remain.
If, however, you think the UK's future is global, that the EU will form an ever shrinking proportion of our trade, that it increasingly be dominated by the eurozone, outvoting the UK, that the limited influence we'll retain doesn't compensate for the shared powers the EU has over the UK with its permanent QMV majority, and that it makes sense for the UK to be represented on global bodies itself independently and able to control its own trade deals, that you're confident an independent UK can be just as successful as other smaller anglosphere nations, controlling both its own laws and borders, even if this causes some short term disruption to the existing economic order, but you feel it has to be done and it won't be that bad, then you're probably going to be for Leave.
Very nice summary indeed, except I would add to the Remainers that they believe they have plenty of sovereignty as things stand.
Thanks Topping. I am very frustrated I can't convince you, and won't stop trying! ;-)
On Hollyrood for a minute, Labour are going to oppose Trident and the SNP are going to raise taxes on the middle classes. Should be a good opportunity for the Tories to capitalise and push for second place and for Ruth to become LOTO.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Ruth is being ignored as she is irrelevant. Even her pals in the Glasgow media can't get enthused about her campaign. Plus, she may have been seen to relevant if the Tories in government at Westminster weren't seen as a car crash in slow motion.
Believe it or not, we do watch the same news on the BBC as the people in England and we can actually read, yes, some of us in the northern counties can read, all those black things on white paper that are printed in deepest, darkest parts of London.
When we see the shenanigans going on between the inners and outers in the euReferendum, we in Scotland, on both sides of the independence argument, share a wry smile when we are not falling off the park bench, spilling our Buckie, laughing.
we in Scotland, on both sides of the independence argument, share a wry smile when we are not falling off the park bench, spilling our Buckie, laughing.
I am continuously amused by the SNP spouting all the lines from the BetterTogether playbook, apparently with a straight face
I have always been a leaver..but I will vote remain..mainly because the entire edifice will crumble during the next decade..and then we can deal with anyone we want..
Mr. Eagles, I don't believe something because the shaman says so, and don't disbelieve it because the poison dwarf says so. I'm quite content to make up my own mind instead of contracting out my critical faculties to Ecclestone, Putin, Cameron or Obama.
Wasn't Poisoned Dwarf the nickname Wogan gave to Charlene Tilton in Dallas? I can't recall her character name, Lucy ?
If you're referring to the 1066 conquest, you're wrong. How wrong? Let me count the ways: 1) It was not a French conquest, it was a Norman one. 2) The upper class changed. It wasn't a whole new people, just a new dynasty and some earls. 3) The general composition of the population (Anglo-Saxon) was unchanged, barring a few nobles. There was no mass migration. 4) England was/is comprised of native Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the odd Viking. Wales and Scotland are Celtic, likewise Northern Ireland.
We're so much like the French that Churchill tried to unite France and The UK into one country.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
When Australia is beating us in the cricket, I don't feel very culturally close to them.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
Following on from my earlier point I have just been looking at a very interesting study by the German IFO institute on the effect of the TTIP on patterns of world trade.
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
No idea how anyone can feel that close to the French except if they have family roots there I guess. My family name seems to be have been disproportionately in Lancashire in the 1881 census !
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
No idea how anyone can feel that close to the French except if they have family roots there I guess. My family name seems to be have been disproportionately in Lancashire in the 1881 census !
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
When Australia is beating us in the cricket, I don't feel very culturally close to them.
The rest of the time is different, of course.
Well hopefully we'll beat them at rugby this summer just like we beat them at cricket last summer.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
No idea how anyone can feel that close to the French except if they have family roots there I guess. My family name seems to be have been disproportionately in Lancashire in the 1881 census !
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
If you're referring to the 1066 conquest, you're wrong. How wrong? Let me count the ways: 1) It was not a French conquest, it was a Norman one. 2) The upper class changed. It wasn't a whole new people, just a new dynasty and some earls. 3) The general composition of the population (Anglo-Saxon) was unchanged, barring a few nobles. There was no mass migration. 4) England was/is comprised of native Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the odd Viking. Wales and Scotland are Celtic, likewise Northern Ireland.
You right @Morris, except there were rather more than a few odd Vikings. IIRMHC, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire were heavily settled by Viking warlords and their gangs.There was also heavy intermarrying with the local wenches for nearly a century. (EDIT) Take into account that the whole population for the British isles was about 3 million at this time and at the time of the Norman Conquest.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
90% of Guardian readers support Remain, as do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Emma Thompson.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
I was on the same side as most of them during the Scottish IndyRef.
I see those, and raise you George Galloway, The BNP, and The EDL.
This is a contest that neither of us are going to win.
George Galloway/BNP and Nicola Sturgeon/Gerry Adams were in reverse places during the IndyRef. I'm sure ISIS and Hezbollah have a view on Brexit too, but, not only is it irrelevant: I couldn't care less.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
90% of Guardian readers support Remain, as do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Emma Thompson.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
I am struck by how many people see the EU's greatest function as a leash to restrain a Tory government.
Whilst I've no problem with TTIP, it's very appealing to Labour swing voters - the way different positions are coalescing for all sorts of perverse motivations is fascinating.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
Mr. K, not really my period but I think there's relatively fewer compared to the mass migration from northern Germany and nearby areas around 500AD. Plenty of Vikings in Yorkshire, of course (and some Yorkshire slang, such as lekking [which other people seem to think is 'laking'] is still used).
On an unrelated note, the boiler is broken. The engineer will arrive at an indeterminate point between 10am and 2pm. Which is irksome.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Australians, Americans, Canadians etc... are or were British at some point. Our royal family is German and our language has Germanic roots rather than Latin roots. How you can identify closer to France than Australia (with whom we share our head of state) or the US (a nation founded by this one) then it's little wonder that you seem so attached to the EU.
No idea how anyone can feel that close to the French except if they have family roots there I guess. My family name seems to be have been disproportionately in Lancashire in the 1881 census !
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
I think we are something of our own blend. In the US I can note some of our Europeaness: Social attitudes mainly, on matters of religion (or the general lack of it), guns, homosexuality (marriage), drink, and even oddly meal times where the American predilection for queuing up outside the steak house at 5.50 in the afternoon remains a source of comical wonder. However, it remains an incontrovertible fact of life that I feel more "at home" in rural New England than Paris, massively so in Melbourne compared to Helsinki, and even in India there are moments where you are sipping tea while the TV mentions a "ripping cover drive" where you think hmmm not as alien as you first think is it?
None of that for one moment means I won't continue to revel in the Loire Valley, the snowy wonders of Savoy, enjoy too much tapas, love my German car, and admire the fact the Czechs were really onto something when they discovered Pilsner.
At heart I simply want to decide things for myself through the entity I feel loyalty too, and that's not "Europe".
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
It's certainly - and sadly - true that many Australians think differently about the relationship with the UK than they used to. 40 years ago, Australia's trade and business links were largely with the UK. Now, given they are resource exporting economy, China dominates their economy, and the people I know are more concerned with making sure their kids learn Mandarin and do internships with Chinese companies.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
Comments
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
All of our customers and suppliers visit the fair. As guests, we have free entry to the fair. If we leave the hotel, we would have to pay an entry fee, we wouldn't have a stand, and not everyone would want to sign a deal with us out the back behind the bins.
The latest RCP average of the last six polls in New York has Trump losing his home state to Clinton by 21.2 points which of course is "some way competitive" in the same way as Aston Villa are competitive to win the Champion League next season.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_trump_vs_clinton-5792.html
A wonderful spring morning here.
One doesn't want to criticise the security services - they have one hell of a job - but this report is interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/review-the-security-of-our-borders-to-keep-britain-safe-say-form/
Two thoughts:-
1. One wonders how many "wake up" calls are needed.
2. I hadn't realised that Kerry had said that the migration crisis threatened to destroy Europe. I wonder if as much attention will be paid to those remarks as to whatever Obama says on his forthcoming visit.
Unemployment up by 21,000 - and average earnings growth slowing. Labour may well mention the economy at PMQs
The results they get for the UK are quite striking and illustrate starkly how much trade diversion occurs thanks to the current preferential trade system we have with the EU.
I refer readers in particular to page 18 which looks at what the UK's trade volumes with a variety of trade partners might look like in two scenarios 1) where only tariffs are removed 2) where there is also a large (not total) reduction in (the much more important) non-tariff barriers.
In case 1) the effects are modest (small tariffs really don't matter much), but in case 2) they are dramatic. IFO's model estimates in the latter case that UK exports to the US would be some 60% higher under TTIP than would otherwise be the case, while exports to Germany, France, Italy and Spain would be around 40% lower. One reason for this is that 'natural' barriers to trade between the UK and US are lower and existing trade integration higher than is the case for other EU countries.
It is worth also reproducing IFO's commentary on these results-
'it appears that integration of Great Britain in the EU would be noticeably weaker in some areas. In other words, through the transatlantic agreement, having Great Britain remain in the European Customs Union would be less valuable for both Great Britain and the other EU member states. Given this background, the discussion of Great Britain’s exit from the EU could take on additional energy.'
Re, the overall effects IFO also finds that the UK is the big winner from TTIP among the main European economies. GDP per capita rises some 10% in the 'deep liberalisation' scenario, double the rise in Germany and four times the rise in France. Employment is 400,000 higher.
http://www.bfna.org/sites/default/files/TTIP-GED study 17June 2013.pdf
Remain's message has been banged home for an eternity, and it's still behind in some polls.
But he'll keep fighting because that's what he's in the race to do - the supers just give him the excuse and Hillary's decision to do likewise in 2008 means she's in a poor position to criticise.
Global temperatures continue at record levels...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084835-unprecedented-global-warming-as-2016-approaches-1-5-c-mark/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201603
The World is warming folks!
Bloomberg - Putin's Propaganda Machine Is Meddling With European Elections http://bloom.bg/1WEgfR7
http://www.cityam.com/239215/george-osborne-has-no-confidence-in-an-independent-britain
Leave did not say that. This is blatant spin by Remain.
Guido has an example in this article: http://order-order.com/2016/04/20/campaign-report-day-4-2/
This is incredibly patronising besides the fact that Bill Gates is not as far as I'm aware an expert on the EU and doesn't even live here!
The US position is more problematic. Sanders has forced Clinton into a treaty-sceptic position, and the GOP in general and Trump in particular are wary of dealings with nasty foreigners. If Clinton wins (probable) but doesn't have a working majority in Congress (almost certain), it's hard to see her getting it through.
The month-on-month (or Q-on-Q) changes aren't that meaningful anyway; better to use the change on this time last year.
Most of us are intelligent enough to ignore him, Bill Gates and the various other Yanks and busybodies interfering in a decision that is for us alone to make.
Claimant Count is slightly up to 732,000. End of the tax year so potential for PS redundancies/contract cessations.
.................
From the FT:-
"Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine” in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit in June’s referendum, according to a vision outlined on Tuesday by Michael Gove."
Where's the "blatant spin"?
Moreover, as noted, the estimates also show how distorted and suboptimal our current trading pattern is.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
Good point. Also encouraging to see the drop in longer term unemployment.
"268,000 people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 16,000 fewer than for a year earlier
•467,000 people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 156,000 fewer than for a year earlier"
Its all getting like the secret oil fields off the west coast of Scoltand that the SNP used to bang on about during ScotRef.
I'd agree broadly with all that.
on
1) Completely correct
2) The common theme is that polls seem to very often understate the winner it seems.
3) This survey of PA's delegates looks broadly encouraging for Trump http://tinyurl.com/zcb5v6a. I'd assume a worst case working figure of 40 delegates perhaps for him (Providing he wins)
4) California is a state that requires alot of organisation ! Trump will need to do better here than previous places that have needed organisation - but if you go off Arizona and Nevada, I think he's definitely favourite. Cruz will pick up some delegates in rural parts though... a hard state to model.
5) Yes, getting zero delegates and third in New York is not a good look for Cruz, and the extent of the rout could do him further harm in the North East as anti-Trump voters consider Kasich perhaps more than they would.
6) Kasich has been dead for a while - his continued candidacy is a mixed bag though... from a quick fag packet analysis I think he hinders Trump/helps him in the following states:
(Since the contest is now essentially Trump vs 1237, hindering Trump is 'close enough' to helping Cruz, even if Kasich denies him some delegates...)
Indiana - Helps (WTA2) - A big help potentially..
Maryland - Helps (WTA2)
Delaware - Helps (WTA)
Pennsylvania - Probably helps - this might be the only state where Cruz not running could flip it Kasich in theory though (WTA)
Nebraska - Could help, surely a Cruz state though.
Washington - Could help at the margins (Cruz sweep is easier without Kasich)
Montana - Could help at the margins, unlikely to be relevant
South Dakota - Could help, surely a Cruz state though.
California - Could help, could hinder, this is very hard to judge ! Probably ends up making ~ zilch difference.
New Jersey (WTA, Kasich likely 2nd I think)- Could hinder, surely this is Trump territory though.
Conneticut - Hinders (Trump vs 50%)
Rhode Island - Hinders (PR)
West Virginia - Hinders (AL2) (I think !)
Oregon - Hinders (Proportional)
New Mexico - Hinders (Proportional)
Kasich cost Trump 5 delegates in New York, but may well have given him 3 in Wisconsin I think.
Overall I think Kasich helps Trump marginally, his effect in Indiana could be big even if he only scores around 15% or so.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Definitely more blunt
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/bernie-ecclestone-says-vladimir-putin-should-run-europe-and-britain-should-get-out-the-eu-a6991501.html
From the FT:-
"Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine” in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit in June’s referendum, according to a vision outlined on Tuesday by Michael Gove."
Where's the "blatant spin"?
You've answered your own question; it's from the Financial Times.
Quoting from the FT to support Remain is like quoting from the Daily Express to support Leave:
If you're referring to the 1066 conquest, you're wrong. How wrong? Let me count the ways:
1) It was not a French conquest, it was a Norman one.
2) The upper class changed. It wasn't a whole new people, just a new dynasty and some earls.
3) The general composition of the population (Anglo-Saxon) was unchanged, barring a few nobles. There was no mass migration.
4) England was/is comprised of native Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the odd Viking. Wales and Scotland are Celtic, likewise Northern Ireland.
Believe it or not, we do watch the same news on the BBC as the people in England and we can actually read, yes, some of us in the northern counties can read, all those black things on white paper that are printed in deepest, darkest parts of London.
When we see the shenanigans going on between the inners and outers in the euReferendum, we in Scotland, on both sides of the independence argument, share a wry smile when we are not falling off the park bench, spilling our Buckie, laughing.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
The rest of the time is different, of course.
I think I know the answer to that one.
I see those, and raise you George Galloway, The BNP, and The EDL.
This is a contest that neither of us are going to win.
My family name seems to be have been disproportionately in Lancashire in the 1881 census !
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
Miss Plato, I'm not sure. It fits Ecclestone and (over the qualifying debacle) Todt.
I agree it is silly for either side to raise it.
On an unrelated note, the boiler is broken. The engineer will arrive at an indeterminate point between 10am and 2pm. Which is irksome.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/the-conservative-party-may-be-destroyed-by-this-european-madness/
None of that for one moment means I won't continue to revel in the Loire Valley, the snowy wonders of Savoy, enjoy too much tapas, love my German car, and admire the fact the Czechs were really onto something when they discovered Pilsner.
At heart I simply want to decide things for myself through the entity I feel loyalty too, and that's not "Europe".
Either you're drunk or a spoof, or possibly both. Even your fellow Leavers will cringe at your posts.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/introducing-the-president-erdogan-offensive-poetry-competition/
Not into poetry, but I am into getting a thousand pounds for a small amount of work, so I shall try and compose an entry.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.