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.
I'm unconvinced, the US courts are too crooked and will favour their companies in any dispute.
Being a fan of it (from the British POV) is imo startlingly, scarily naive. Anyone remember BP? Standard Chartered? The US is trying to use its relative power to offset it's eye-watering debt by ripping the guts out of any small fry it can get these 'free trade' agreements with.
It is a fact that Sadiq Khan has spoken at events and shared a platform with extremists (Cage are extremists). It is not racist to point this out and Labour are being beyond stupid in conflating criticisms of extremists and their associates with racism.
The issues are:-
1. Does he agree with them? 2. Did he think about whether it was sensible to do this? 3. If he does not agree with them, has he challenged them?
There is very little evidence to say yes to the first question. The second and third questions are the most important: the second because it relates to his judgment and the third because it is relevant to his claim in the Mayoral election that he will challenge the extremists.
Anyone can claim that they will do something in the future. How credible it is can be tested by seeing what they have done in the past when they had the opportunity to do something similar. And there the evidence is not great for Khan: see his remarks about Al-Qaradawi, Livingstone's invitee in 2004, for instance.
And if someone does not challenge extremists and shares platforms with them, even though there may be a plausible explanation for why they do so (though see the second "judgment" question) then it may raise questions in some people's minds about question 1. Or it may show that he lacks courage, that while he can talk a good game, when it comes to doing anything, he's an empty suit.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed?
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. It's not an argument that appeals to me, and it's one reason why I'll be voting Leave. Certainly, if we vote Remain, the drive to harmonise everything will continue.
.
If we stay, and harmonisation continues, then our degree of economic integration with the EU will become even greater and it'll be even harder to Leave in future. All the economic arguments currently being used will have even greater weight, even as our sovereignty is diminished.
That's another reason I'm voting Leave and am not relaxed about 'another' referendum 'someday' in the future.
This might be our only chance.
Sure, the government's main argument for Remain is essentially that it is simply too disruptive, at an administrative level, for leaving the EU to be a viable option. And, it will always be administratively disruptive to leave.
So: "It's a bit crap really, but what can you do?".
What an election slogan that is. A real call to the ballot box.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
Problem is, that comment could even apply to tidy-sameness such as ensuring that railways that cross land borders are the same gauge either side, or that mobile phones work seamlessly with no change in cost in two adjacent countries. Nobody opposes all harmonisation, and everybody objects to some harmonisations. Most (all?) progress is a result of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
However, most of the really bad things that are done by governments are also done by people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
* This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. * This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2014) * This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (June 2014) * This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (June 2014)
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
* This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. * This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2014) * This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (June 2014) * This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (June 2014)
Cameron flushed, unconvincing and hesitant on migration.
It really shows the nonsense of the Treasury report. One reason it assumes higher GDP is that immigration will continue at the rate of over 200K a year removing a break that might otherwise be on our economy as we move closer to full employment. Cameron has just said that his agreement is going to restrict that immigration. If he is right (big if) then growth will be lower than the forecast and the difference between in and out will be less.
The line reminds me of some betslips I saw posted on twitter yesterday where people had backed Sprinter Sacre and Mullins champion trainer in their multiples.
Dave can either have the immigration target, or the income target... unlikely both - A negatively correlated multiple.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
I wonder how he'll cope with being a social pariah in many places and homes where he was previously welcomed?
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
You're not going all wobbly on us, are you Luckyguy?
No worries on that score, I just feel the campaign is being sabotaged by shit people, namely (no offence) by Tories.
Bottom line is I think they should have unified, so they could use everyone's talents. Farage is divisive for sure, but on the EU he is wholly convincing, and him being left on the subs bench is a disgrace.
Forgive me for being vague on details (I'm better on concepts) but I believe the last Euroref (was it Finland??) to take place was a similar situation - every establishment figure bar the Emperor Palpatine piled in behind the pro-EU stance, and the people voted to tell them to eff-off. To do that you need to create a narrative that involves suspicion of the motives of those telling you to stay in, and goodness knows there's enough to go around. If you have a load of Atlanticist hawks like Gove and Liam Fox speaking for you, you can't question the motives of the US, merely politely disagree with their conclusions. That won't do.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Is a common inheritance law proposed?
world.
There was a proposal in 2010/11 to harmonise inheritance laws across the EU, but I don't think it's a live issue at the moment.
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
T
If
It will collapse by 2022 regardless
That's very specific.
It also shows up the thinking of Putin on this. Putin couldn't give a flying toss about Brexit one way or the other; what's he's interested in is disunity in the common foreign policy position adopted against him by EU member states and the economic sanctions. For example, if Putin concluded Britain was likely to become more nationalistic and miltaristic outside the EU, and offer a stronger 'hard' challenge to his power, he might rapidly turn in favour of our EU membership if it neutered that sentiment.
So it's a straw man argument against a criminal, murdering tyrant. I find it insulting in the extreme that people here fellow Britons try to link our national independence to this maniac just to smear the other side so they win. Frankly, it's disgusting.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that European cooperation against dictators on our doorstep would change in the event of Brexit and, in fact, on matters of regional security, maritime survelliance and counter terrorism I'd hope we'd collaborate even more.
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
"I have in my hand a Waitrose receipt, with some Biro'd notes..."
So let's do a thought experiment. If that proposal were revived, should we adopt the largely Continental view - that you must leave a significant proportion of your estate to your children, divided equally - or should we adopt the UK approach - namely, that a person can leave their estate to whoever they choose?
I don't see myself why there is a need to harmonise such a law. But the march of the EU is to greater and greater harmonisation. So if we do end up in a position where we - and by "we" I mean all the EU states - have to choose, what choice do we make? If it's by QMV the UK will be outvoted. So yet another aspect of Britishness (and I accept that inheritance laws are not at the forefront of anyone's minds) goes. It is this creeping homogenisation which I do find troubling.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
Problem is, that comment could even apply to tidy-sameness such as ensuring that railways that cross land borders are the same gauge either side, or that mobile phones work seamlessly with no change in cost in two adjacent countries. Nobody opposes all harmonisation, and everybody objects to some harmonisations. Most (all?) progress is a result of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
Oh I understand that last point. Within reason that is necessary for progress. There is a good reason for having common railway gauges. It can also be quite fun arriving at a new country and having to change trains. It shows that you have arrived somewhere different, that life is not the same everywhere - and I rather celebrate that I must say.
But just because some harmonisation is good does not mean that everything needs to be harmonised. Sometimes there are other matters that are more important. That seems to be forgotten by those who argue for ever more integration/harmonisation.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Agree 100%. Feeling extremely bitter not about his campaign, but the way he has conducted it.
I've decided this will be my last comment abut the EU.
I think Remain are making a mistake emphasising the "It's not perfect but you can't leave as it's too disruptive." It reminds me too much of the last two lines of Hotel California.
They should be saying "There are some issues but we can fix it." The Bob the Builder lyric, appropriated by Barack. Unfortunately, Cameron with his Mickey Mouse renegotiation has shown that to be false.
Dave can either have the immigration target, or the income target... unlikely both - A negatively correlated multiple.
The idea that the government can control immigration when 440 million people, and growing, can choose to move here whenever they want is laughable. I honestly don't see the point of setting an immigration target anymore, it is about as controllable as rainfall or sunshine. That said it was nice of the Treasury to confirm what we all know, that Dave's aim for immigration will never be met.
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
What does Lazy Vaizey actually do....6 years in government and I can't think of a single thing.
Blimey, since winning the election the conservatives have deteriorated rapidly. Poor policy coming from the government in regards to housing, academisation. Dave upsetting most of his MPS.
Probably a good thing he'll be off at some point this term.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
Wasn't the most full throated roar of support you will ever see was it? Got the impression he took the views of his local councillor quite seriously on this.
The problem I see for the government is that they want to keep spending per pupil up. If money is still spent on local government education departments which have been bureaucratic sponges for scarce resources in the past (as well as providers of essential services for special needs children etc) that is more difficult. They basically want to take this money away from LG and give it to schools so they can keep their pledge/aspiration.
This is why this was announced by Osborne. It is really about money and the allocation of resources, not education as such.
Once again very grown up questions from Angus Robertson.
Is it based on bullshit figures this time?
No. They were about the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the need to confront extremism and sectarianism both in actual thugs like the murderer and in those who whisper in their ears. He and Cameron on exactly the same page on this.
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
Wasn't the most full throated roar of support you will ever see was it? Got the impression he took the views of his local councillor quite seriously on this.
The problem I see for the government is that they want to keep spending per pupil up. If money is still spent on local government education departments which have been bureaucratic sponges for scarce resources in the past (as well as providers of essential services for special needs children etc) that is more difficult. They basically want to take this money away from LG and give it to schools so they can keep their pledge/aspiration.
This is why this was announced by Osborne. It is really about money and the allocation of resources, not education as such.
Ken Clarke mocking many on his own party. Disgraceful.
Taught TSE everything he knows....Master and apprentice.
TSE: What have I done?!
Darth Gideon (aka. Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political obscurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads.
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAINERs.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
There's a rationale behind harmonising everything at pan-European level. If people can live anywhere in the EU, then there's an argument that you should have the same law everywhere. [Snipped].
Like you I don't accept that rationale. It strikes me as the rationale of the bureaucrat, who wants everything tidy and the same because it's easier. It strikes me as the rationale of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is, with mess and difference and variety and diversity and oddness and history, the rationale of people who want to make the world into what they think it should be, regardless of the wishes of those living in it. I dislike the impulse to harmonisation.
Problem is, that comment could even apply to tidy-sameness such as ensuring that railways that cross land borders are the same gauge either side, or that mobile phones work seamlessly with no change in cost in two adjacent countries. Nobody opposes all harmonisation, and everybody objects to some harmonisations. Most (all?) progress is a result of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
Oh I understand that last point. Within reason that is necessary for progress. There is a good reason for having common railway gauges. It can also be quite fun arriving at a new country and having to change trains. It shows that you have arrived somewhere different, that life is not the same everywhere - and I rather celebrate that I must say.
But just because some harmonisation is good does not mean that everything needs to be harmonised. Sometimes there are other matters that are more important. That seems to be forgotten by those who argue for ever more integration/harmonisation.
I think that was my point that everyone objects to some harmonisation, though. It's a myth to suggest that anyone is motivated by across-the-board integration and harmonisation as the end in itself; there are just differences of opinion on whether a particular harmonisation is good, or in that particular case other matters are more important. Inheritance/succession law might be a good example of that: to most people it seems like needless meddling in national heritage and culture; to others (who, for example, have dealt with more than their fair share of disputes in families involving cross-border marriages and/or residency in multiple countries) it may seem like an important issue to reduce uncertainty, bureaucracy and family conflict.
I do agree with you on the benefits of different train gauges at the border, though.
Ken Clarke mocking many on his own party. Disgraceful.
Taught TSE everything he knows....Master and apprentice.
TSE: What have I done?!
Darth Gideon (aka. Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political obscurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads.
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAINERs.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
...... The problem I see for the government is that they want to keep spending per pupil up. If money is still spent on local government education departments which have been bureaucratic sponges for scarce resources in the past (as well as providers of essential services for special needs children etc) that is more difficult. They basically want to take this money away from LG and give it to schools so they can keep their pledge/aspiration. This is why this was announced by Osborne. It is really about money and the allocation of resources, not education as such.
Some incentives would probably achieve the same result by 2022. Instead we have blue on blue warfare.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
Blimey, since winning the election the conservatives have deteriorated rapidly. Poor policy coming from the government in regards to housing, academisation. Dave upsetting most of his MPS.
Probably a good thing he'll be off at some point this term.
Most of it originating from Osborne, so unless he is gone as well the rotting head remains.
Once again very grown up questions from Angus Robertson.
Is it based on bullshit figures this time?
No. They were about the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the need to confront extremism and sectarianism both in actual thugs like the murderer and in those who whisper in their ears. He and Cameron on exactly the same page on this.
Also relevant to Sadiq Khan: his local Tooting imam is one of those who has urged boycotts of Ahmadiyyas. Has Khan challenged him? If not, why should we believe him when he says that he will challenge extremists?
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
What does Lazy Vaizey actually do....6 years in government and I can't think of a single thing.
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Ted Heath II
His announcement of The Deal reminded me of Chamberlain at the aerodrome (as we used to call them)
Chamberlain was sincere, if sorely mistaken.
Was he though? IIRC he came back with peace in our time and the UK went into war production. Most of the spitfires in service in the battle of Britain were built between the waving of that paper and the outbreak of the war.
Maybe hope for the best and prepare for the worst but I really doubt that he was under many illusions.
Problem is, that comment could even apply to tidy-sameness such as ensuring that railways that cross land borders are the same gauge either side, or that mobile phones work seamlessly with no change in cost in two adjacent countries. Nobody opposes all harmonisation, and everybody objects to some harmonisations. Most (all?) progress is a result of the sorts of people who are unwilling to live with the world as it is.
Oh I understand that last point. Within reason that is necessary for progress. There is a good reason for having common railway gauges. It can also be quite fun arriving at a new country and having to change trains. It shows that you have arrived somewhere different, that life is not the same everywhere - and I rather celebrate that I must say.
But just because some harmonisation is good does not mean that everything needs to be harmonised. Sometimes there are other matters that are more important. That seems to be forgotten by those who argue for ever more integration/harmonisation.
I think that was my point that everyone objects to some harmonisation, though. It's a myth to suggest that anyone is motivated by across-the-board integration and harmonisation as the end in itself; there are just differences of opinion on whether a particular harmonisation is good, or in that particular case other matters are more important. Inheritance/succession law might be a good example of that: to most people it seems like needless meddling in national heritage and culture; to others (who, for example, have dealt with more than their fair share of disputes in families involving cross-border marriages and/or residency in multiple countries) it may seem like an important issue to reduce uncertainty, bureaucracy and family conflict.
I do agree with you on the benefits of different train gauges at the border, though.
When I first went to Spain many many years ago, I used to take the overnight train from Paris Austerlitz and once we arrived at the Franco-Spanish border we'd have to change trains for the train to Barcelona. A bit inconvenient - but there was something magical about waking up, smelling the different air, being turfed out of our couchettes and taking a recognisably Spanish train for the arrival into Spain.
Dave can either have the immigration target, or the income target... unlikely both - A negatively correlated multiple.
The idea that the government can control immigration when 440 million people, and growing, can choose to move here whenever they want is laughable. I honestly don't see the point of setting an immigration target anymore, it is about as controllable as rainfall or sunshine. That said it was nice of the Treasury to confirm what we all know, that Dave's aim for immigration will never be met.
We all look for some fundamental error that will seal the result for one side or the other. The 3 million is one of the possibilities. LEAVE can use it many many times and can not be accused of making the number up.
[Sunil and TSE confront each other, after the former has learnt that the latter has turned to the Daft Side]
Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.
TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!
Sunil: Your new Empire?
TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.
Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the Republic Monarchy, to democracy!
TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Sunil:[realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes. [draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!
TSE: You will try! [draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]
[later during a pause in the battle]
Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.
TSE: I should have known the LEAVERs were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.
Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.
TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERs who are evil.
Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!
TSE:[raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.
[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]
Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!
TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!
Sunil: Don't try it!
[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly hacks off TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, and bereft of his Force abilities!]
Sunil: You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!
TSE:[shouts] I HATE you!
Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.
[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...]
Some incentives would probably achieve the same result by 2022. Instead we have blue on blue warfare.
When academies were first launched you used to hear a lot about "competing approaches to education will help to improve all schools". Now the policy is "every school should be an academy" which to my eyes would seem to reduce the competition that was one of the original justifications. It really doesn't make sense, unless as DavidL says it is really about meeting a spending pledge and nothing to do with good education.
Once again very grown up questions from Angus Robertson.
Is it based on bullshit figures this time?
No. They were about the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the need to confront extremism and sectarianism both in actual thugs like the murderer and in those who whisper in their ears. He and Cameron on exactly the same page on this.
Also relevant to Sadiq Khan: his local Tooting imam is one of those who has urged boycotts of Ahmadiyyas. Has Khan challenged him? If not, why should we believe him when he says that he will challenge extremists?
Those two excellent programs on R4 recently about the Deobandis also touched on this. Unfortunately we have brought the troubles of the Punjab into our cities. Not sure it was the best idea.
Ken Clarke mocking many on his own party. Disgraceful.
Lol - while all the Brexiteers on here now rubbish Cameron at every opportunity - including PMQs.
This is a rolling comments website. I am talking about HoC and PMQs in particular with an audience (eventually) in the millions. Therefore I struggle to recall a Brexiteer MP saying something about fellow europhile MPs that is similar to Clarke at PMQs.
Ed Vaizey on DP bravely stepping back from full support of Govt academisation programme of Osborne's. A new semi-detatched minister? One up for the reshuffle cull if Cameron survives?
Wasn't the most full throated roar of support you will ever see was it? Got the impression he took the views of his local councillor quite seriously on this.
The problem I see for the government is that they want to keep spending per pupil up. If money is still spent on local government education departments which have been bureaucratic sponges for scarce resources in the past (as well as providers of essential services for special needs children etc) that is more difficult. They basically want to take this money away from LG and give it to schools so they can keep their pledge/aspiration.
This is why this was announced by Osborne. It is really about money and the allocation of resources, not education as such.
Are councillors (of all parties) worried that they will lose their special additional "allowances" for overseeing education?
[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 agree! I work with loads of Americans and Europeans (my employer was founded and is headquartered in the US but then bought out by a European global giant) and, language aside, I find the Americans far more alien. The French and Italians play Rugby Union! And 'Thanksgiving' - what's all that about?
Cameron really is a busted flush now. He will probably win his vote but will forever be regarded as effectively a traitor by somewhere near half the country. See Blair/Iraq for howsuch profound disapproval neednot fade. This reflects not his position, that in is better than out. That can be legitimately argued. It is the deliberate deception,and his dishonourable conduct in looking to rig the scales that have done for his reputation inmy view
Agree 100%. Feeling extremely bitter not about his campaign, but the way he has conducted it.
Yes, conducting it in a political manner in order to win was totally unexpected and beyond the pale.
Personally I think Leavers, particularly Tory Leavers, should hold off the traitor talk until after the referendum. Leave has the most compelling arguments, the best drive, and the status quo has less firmness to it than the IndyRef. Calling out Cameron for misleading or unfair stuff is fine if people feel that, but it is standard political behaviour, and focusing too much on how he's 'rigging' things and 'betraying' things risks looking like Leave think they'll lose and are getting excuses in or focusing more on the man than the arguments (when they can do both).
Comments
The issues are:-
1. Does he agree with them?
2. Did he think about whether it was sensible to do this?
3. If he does not agree with them, has he challenged them?
There is very little evidence to say yes to the first question. The second and third questions are the most important: the second because it relates to his judgment and the third because it is relevant to his claim in the Mayoral election that he will challenge the extremists.
Anyone can claim that they will do something in the future. How credible it is can be tested by seeing what they have done in the past when they had the opportunity to do something similar. And there the evidence is not great for Khan: see his remarks about Al-Qaradawi, Livingstone's invitee in 2004, for instance.
And if someone does not challenge extremists and shares platforms with them, even though there may be a plausible explanation for why they do so (though see the second "judgment" question) then it may raise questions in some people's minds about question 1. Or it may show that he lacks courage, that while he can talk a good game, when it comes to doing anything, he's an empty suit.
What an election slogan that is. A real call to the ballot box.
* This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
* This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2014)
* This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (June 2014)
* This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (June 2014)
Trump 48 .. Kasich 28 .. Cruz 19
Clinton 51 .. Sanders 42
https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ct/ct04202016_Crbw42dm.pdf
Dave can either have the immigration target, or the income target... unlikely both - A negatively correlated multiple.
@Gillian_Philip: "Let me touch the hem of your jacket, Mother Sturgeon." https://t.co/fWBHxQ5slC
Bottom line is I think they should have unified, so they could use everyone's talents. Farage is divisive for sure, but on the EU he is wholly convincing, and him being left on the subs bench is a disgrace.
Forgive me for being vague on details (I'm better on concepts) but I believe the last Euroref (was it Finland??) to take place was a similar situation - every establishment figure bar the Emperor Palpatine piled in behind the pro-EU stance, and the people voted to tell them to eff-off. To do that you need to create a narrative that involves suspicion of the motives of those telling you to stay in, and goodness knows there's enough to go around. If you have a load of Atlanticist hawks like Gove and Liam Fox speaking for you, you can't question the motives of the US, merely politely disagree with their conclusions. That won't do.
It also shows up the thinking of Putin on this. Putin couldn't give a flying toss about Brexit one way or the other; what's he's interested in is disunity in the common foreign policy position adopted against him by EU member states and the economic sanctions. For example, if Putin concluded Britain was likely to become more nationalistic and miltaristic outside the EU, and offer a stronger 'hard' challenge to his power, he might rapidly turn in favour of our EU membership if it neutered that sentiment.
So it's a straw man argument against a criminal, murdering tyrant. I find it insulting in the extreme that people here fellow Britons try to link our national independence to this maniac just to smear the other side so they win. Frankly, it's disgusting.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that European cooperation against dictators on our doorstep would change in the event of Brexit and, in fact, on matters of regional security, maritime survelliance and counter terrorism I'd hope we'd collaborate even more.
But just because some harmonisation is good does not mean that everything needs to be harmonised. Sometimes there are other matters that are more important. That seems to be forgotten by those who argue for ever more integration/harmonisation.
I think Remain are making a mistake emphasising the "It's not perfect but you can't leave as it's too disruptive." It reminds me too much of the last two lines of Hotel California.
They should be saying "There are some issues but we can fix it." The Bob the Builder lyric, appropriated by Barack. Unfortunately, Cameron with his Mickey Mouse renegotiation has shown that to be false.
Probably a good thing he'll be off at some point this term.
The problem I see for the government is that they want to keep spending per pupil up. If money is still spent on local government education departments which have been bureaucratic sponges for scarce resources in the past (as well as providers of essential services for special needs children etc) that is more difficult. They basically want to take this money away from LG and give it to schools so they can keep their pledge/aspiration.
This is why this was announced by Osborne. It is really about money and the allocation of resources, not education as such.
Makes sense.
Darth Gideon (aka. Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political obscurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads.
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAINERs.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
TSE: Thank you... my Master.
Darth Gideon: Lord Eagles... rise.
I do agree with you on the benefits of different train gauges at the border, though.
Voted for him in 2001 over IDS.
How'd that turn out you Eurosceptic loons?
Plus I can't see me voting for Osborne.
Also relevant to Sadiq Khan: his local Tooting imam is one of those who has urged boycotts of Ahmadiyyas. Has Khan challenged him? If not, why should we believe him when he says that he will challenge extremists?
Maybe hope for the best and prepare for the worst but I really doubt that he was under many illusions.
Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.
TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!
Sunil: Your new Empire?
TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.
Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the
RepublicMonarchy, to democracy!TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Sunil: [realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes.
[draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!
TSE: You will try!
[draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]
[later during a pause in the battle]
Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.
TSE: I should have known the LEAVERs were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.
Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.
TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERs who are evil.
Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!
TSE: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.
[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]
Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!
TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!
Sunil: Don't try it!
[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly hacks off TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, and bereft of his Force abilities!]
Sunil: You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!
TSE: [shouts] I HATE you!
Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.
[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...]
[to be continued....]
Therefore I struggle to recall a Brexiteer MP saying something about fellow europhile MPs that is similar to Clarke at PMQs.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Personally I think Leavers, particularly Tory Leavers, should hold off the traitor talk until after the referendum. Leave has the most compelling arguments, the best drive, and the status quo has less firmness to it than the IndyRef. Calling out Cameron for misleading or unfair stuff is fine if people feel that, but it is standard political behaviour, and focusing too much on how he's 'rigging' things and 'betraying' things risks looking like Leave think they'll lose and are getting excuses in or focusing more on the man than the arguments (when they can do both).