He's likely to get quite a shock, if the comments look like I suspect they will.
I was listening to how it was all coming across on R4 this morning, trying not to let my own very strong feelings on the subject get in the way. I just can't see it coming over well. It was when Obama effectively said it was his business because of the tens of thousands of American war dead resting in European cemeteries. To any American, that's a killer argument. But to my mind, Brits and Americans, of all ages, have very different vews of the war and the relative roles of the two countries. I could be wrong, but personally an American implying that they get a say over Britain's future because they saved us really pisses me off. What do people here think? Remainers especially.
Bunch of tossers, poking their big beaks in thinking everybody should jump when they give out orders. looking after No1 as they always do, they love useful chumps and make full use of our lapdog sycophancy. Unfortunately the balloons running our country love to get a burger at the White House and will prostrate themselves in any position when ordered.
Obama's statement was another howler from the Remain side, following Osborne's declaration that the average household will lose £4300 if Britain leaves.
The statement about cemeteries is vile. What about all the British soldiers who have died fighting wars for the US, for example in Afghanistan and Iraq? Butt out, Obama!
If there's an argument for Remain here, it's that no British soldiers have been reported to have died fighting wars recently for France or Germany. They are far less martial countries than the US, and much better to have as friends than the world bully.
If anyone is interested in finding out about views on EU membership in British army circles, they should go to the forums on the army's main (unofficial) site. There is huge support among British soldiers and their families for leaving the EU.
(There is also large support among British soldiers for the view that the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria are essentially part of the same antagonism as exists in places like Bradford.)
Imagine the outrage had Ronald Reagan or George Bush arrived in London to tell Thatcher or Blair to stay in The EU.
Obama might have had more luck invoking America's WWII casualties as a symbol of the transatlantic alliance had he not removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office within days of taking power.
I think Obama will tickle the tummies of Guardianistas and graduates, but few others.
"Piss off America, this has nothing to do with you. Now, can we start talking about that trade agreement which will give us a mountain of advantages we could not have received while inside the EU?"
I see that Boris Johnson is again criticising the leader of a federation of states that came together to form a single country of hypocrisy for advocating that an ally should continue to pool sovereignty with its neighbours on a more limited basis. He's being perplexingly stupid.
"The single most common myth about the EU in the United States – heard occasionally in Europe too – is that it is 1776 all over again: the creation of a new federal union. This is a particularly potent and dangerous myth. The EU is not a federation, in which important powers are permanently retained by the states and only a defined and necessary set are delegated to the central government: it is a steadily-deeper union that seeks the progressive eradication of sovereign state powers. Moreover, the European peoples are not a political body, a demos: they speak different languages, have different cultures, and have different histories."
I see today is going to be another day like yesterday where Leavers put forward mutually contradictory criticisms of their opponents. And who said that consistency is the sign of a small mind?
I don't think accusing Leavers of being simple-minded or stupid is going to be a profitable line of attack for you.
He's likely to get quite a shock, if the comments look like I suspect they will.
I was listening to how it was all coming across on R4 this morning, trying not to let my own very strong feelings on the subject get in the way. I just can't see it coming over well. It was when Obama effectively said it was his business because of the tens of thousands of American war dead resting in European cemeteries. To any American, that's a killer argument. But to my mind, Brits and Americans, of all ages, have very different vews of the war and the relative roles of the two countries. I could be wrong, but personally an American implying that they get a say over Britain's future because they saved us really pisses me off. What do people here think? Remainers especially.
Bunch of tossers, poking their big beaks in thinking everybody should jump when they give out orders. looking after No1 as they always do, they love useful chumps and make full use of our lapdog sycophancy. Unfortunately the balloons running our country love to get a burger at the White House and will prostrate themselves in any position when ordered.
Obama's statement was another howler from the Remain side, following Osborne's declaration that the average household will lose £4300 if Britain leaves.
The statement about cemeteries is vile. What about all the British soldiers who have died fighting wars for the US, for example in Afghanistan and Iraq? Butt out, Obama!
If there's an argument for Remain here, it's that no British soldiers have been reported to have died fighting wars recently for France or Germany. They are far less martial countries than the US, and much better to have as friends than the world bully.
If anyone is interested in finding out about views on EU membership in British army circles, they should go to the forums on the army's main (unofficial) site. There is huge support among British soldiers and their families for leaving the EU.
(There is also large support among British soldiers for the view that the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria are essentially part of the same antagonism as exists in places like Bradford.)
Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
A fine sight of your ARSE4EU this spring morning. Getting closer to my NoJam all the time. My ARSE does not have the same magnitude and weight of course...
"Piss off America, this has nothing to do with you. Now, can we start talking about that trade agreement which will give us a mountain of advantages we could not have received while inside the EU?"
I see that Boris Johnson is again criticising the leader of a federation of states that came together to form a single country of hypocrisy for advocating that an ally should continue to pool sovereignty with its neighbours on a more limited basis. He's being perplexingly stupid.
"The single most common myth about the EU in the United States – heard occasionally in Europe too – is that it is 1776 all over again: the creation of a new federal union. This is a particularly potent and dangerous myth. The EU is not a federation, in which important powers are permanently retained by the states and only a defined and necessary set are delegated to the central government: it is a steadily-deeper union that seeks the progressive eradication of sovereign state powers. Moreover, the European peoples are not a political body, a demos: they speak different languages, have different cultures, and have different histories."
I see today is going to be another day like yesterday where Leavers put forward mutually contradictory criticisms of their opponents. And who said that consistency is the sign of a small mind?
I don't think accusing Leavers of being simple-minded or stupid is going to be a profitable line of attack for you.
Are you suggesting those arguments aren't mutually contradictory?
"Piss off America, this has nothing to do with you. Now, can we start talking about that trade agreement which will give us a mountain of advantages we could not have received while inside the EU?"
I see that Boris Johnson is again criticising the leader of a federation of states that came together to form a single country of hypocrisy for advocating that an ally should continue to pool sovereignty with its neighbours on a more limited basis. He's being perplexingly stupid.
"The single most common myth about the EU in the United States – heard occasionally in Europe too – is that it is 1776 all over again: the creation of a new federal union. This is a particularly potent and dangerous myth. The EU is not a federation, in which important powers are permanently retained by the states and only a defined and necessary set are delegated to the central government: it is a steadily-deeper union that seeks the progressive eradication of sovereign state powers. Moreover, the European peoples are not a political body, a demos: they speak different languages, have different cultures, and have different histories."
I see today is going to be another day like yesterday where Leavers put forward mutually contradictory criticisms of their opponents. And who said that consistency is the sign of a small mind?
I don't think accusing Leavers of being simple-minded or stupid is going to be a profitable line of attack for you.
Something of a stupid and simple-minded reply I think ....
Excuse my ignore, but how do you go about getting the mass of live information that Betfair produces? There seems to be an API for building third-party apps, but I can't find any access to the data for an average punter.
"Piss off America, this has nothing to do with you. Now, can we start talking about that trade agreement which will give us a mountain of advantages we could not have received while inside the EU?"
I see that Boris Johnson is again criticising the leader of a federation of states that came together to form a single country of hypocrisy for advocating that an ally should continue to pool sovereignty with its neighbours on a more limited basis. He's being perplexingly stupid.
"The single most common myth about the EU in the United States – heard occasionally in Europe too – is that it is 1776 all over again: the creation of a new federal union. This is a particularly potent and dangerous myth. The EU is not a federation, in which important powers are permanently retained by the states and only a defined and necessary set are delegated to the central government: it is a steadily-deeper union that seeks the progressive eradication of sovereign state powers. Moreover, the European peoples are not a political body, a demos: they speak different languages, have different cultures, and have different histories."
I see today is going to be another day like yesterday where Leavers put forward mutually contradictory criticisms of their opponents. And who said that consistency is the sign of a small mind?
I don't think accusing Leavers of being simple-minded or stupid is going to be a profitable line of attack for you.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
A fine sight of your ARSE4EU this spring morning. Getting closer to my NoJam all the time. My ARSE does not have the same magnitude and weight of course...
indeed so but it's always worthy to note the progeny of my ARSE following most successfully in the historic anals of political projection.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Cummings is an eccentric, and people skills aren't his forte, but all he's saying there is that it's disingenuous to suggest any forecast or projection can be 'accurate', since they all rely on assumptions.
I don't know who Cummings is, but he's absolutely right about that. It's ludicrous to say that a poll is accurate or not accurate. Yet that is the kind of language I hear in the media and on this website again and again.
Pollsters' quoted predictions are predictions on the basis of what people tell them. Telling a pollster something is a different activity from voting. I've also noted that the questions they ask other than "if the vote was tomorrow, how would you vote?" tend to be ridiculous. "Please tick which is the most important issue for you in the EU referendum" is a classic of a stupid question. There's one major effing issue in the EU referendum: immigration. "On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to vote" is only slightly less ridiculous. Asking poll questions is not sampling how people vote.
The EUref polls are at least as binnable as last year's general election ones.
You may care about immigration, I care about the economy. I'm not the only one.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Tell me how much sovereignty the USA surrenders to other nations?
Imagine the outrage had Ronald Reagan or George Bush arrived in London to tell Thatcher or Blair to stay in The EU.
had he not removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office within days of taking power.
The battle of Churchill's bust is more complicated than commonly reported and since there is still one on display in the private residence of the White House, I don't think you can say much about Obama's view of the UK from it.
(Tho UKIP voters are the least favourable, 'good job net: Con: +53, UKIP: +19)
My UKIP supporting, Brexit voting, cab driver this morning was singing the praises of Obama. I'm particular, he admired the way he'd brought an end to two wars.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
So Washington's opinion has a false basis and can be safely ignored. Thanks!
He's likely to get quite a shock, if the comments look like I suspect they will.
I was listening to how it was all coming across on R4 this morning, trying not to let my own very strong feelings on the subject get in the way. I just can't see it coming over well. It was when Obama effectively said it was his business because of the tens of thousands of American war dead resting in European cemeteries. To any American, that's a killer argument. But to my mind, Brits and Americans, of all ages, have very different vews of the war and the relative roles of the two countries. I could be wrong, but personally an American implying that they get a say over Britain's future because they saved us really pisses me off. What do people here think? Remainers especially.
I suppose on the war dead metric, Putin would have the biggest potential say.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Tell me how much sovereignty the USA surrenders to other nations?
Hypocrites.
When they entered into NATO, they committed to come to war to defend us. That's a pretty serious pooling of sovereignty.
'Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.'
--------------------------
Yes, that's why they skewed the study and then skewed the interpretation of it yet further, to produce a 'big number'. Even if you then say the number is double what it should be, it's still 'big'.
Richard N tried this is on with me a few weeks ago, quoting exaggerated figures then admitting they looked a bit toppy but inviting me to meet him in the middle. Naturally I didn't.
'Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.'
--------------------------
Yes, that's why they skewed the study and then skewed the interpretation of it yet further, to produce a 'big number'. Even if you then say the number is double what it should be, it's still 'big'.
Richard N tried this is on with me a few weeks ago, quoting exaggerated figures then admitting they looked a bit toppy but inviting me to meet him in the middle. Naturally I didn't.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Tell me how much sovereignty the USA surrenders to other nations?
Hypocrites.
When they entered into NATO, they committed to come to war to defend us. That's a pretty serious pooling of sovereignty.
Not really it's an implied quid pro quo but Congress retains the right to say "no" to any war on a case by case basis. The law is still determined by Congress, SCOTUS and the Presidential administration.
Given we are such a big net contributor to the EU, I find it hard to believe we will lose money by leaving. Leave need to hammer the cost of living, wage suppression and competition for jobs effect of free movement, especially to people in my age group.
Trump looks good in southern Indiana (Upper South/Greater Appalachia) and NW around Chicago. As prior primaries suggested. South Dakota and Montana do look decent chances. Oregon looks better than Washington. New Mexico might go more like Texas than Arizona.
(Tho UKIP voters are the least favourable, 'good job net: Con: +53, UKIP: +19)
My UKIP supporting, Brexit voting, cab driver this morning was singing the praises of Obama. I'm particular, he admired the way he'd brought an end to two wars.
I didn't mention his EU views.
Do we know when President Putin will be holding court with Nigel Farage and taking tea with Boris? .... A quite wonderful photo opportunity for LEAVE beckons.
The nation awaits ....
Noteworthy how the respective campaigns have evolved :
REMAIN have gone from Project Fear to Project Apocalypse LEAVE have morphed from Project Titter to Project Whinge
'Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.'
--------------------------
Yes, that's why they skewed the study and then skewed the interpretation of it yet further, to produce a 'big number'. Even if you then say the number is double what it should be, it's still 'big'.
Richard N tried this is on with me a few weeks ago, quoting exaggerated figures then admitting they looked a bit toppy but inviting me to meet him in the middle. Naturally I didn't.
Much better put than me!
Cheers.
Our side can of course do the reverse. Minford's study suggests the UK cost of living will fall 8% if we move to unilateral free trade, which is a very big welfare gain.
Perhaps we can be conservative and say it might not be quite as big as that. Will the REMAIN side meet us in the middle and agree to, say, a 5% gain in UK living standards from Brexit?
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Tell me how much sovereignty the USA surrenders to other nations?
Hypocrites.
When they entered into NATO, they committed to come to war to defend us. That's a pretty serious pooling of sovereignty.
Not really it's an implied quid pro quo but Congress retains the right to say "no" to any war on a case by case basis. The law is still determined by Congress, SCOTUS and the Presidential administration.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Washington are exasperated that this referendum is happening at all, just as in Scotland two years ago.
They'd far rather the domestic politics of their allies overseas didn't interfere with their interests.
Imagine the outrage had Ronald Reagan or George Bush arrived in London to tell Thatcher or Blair to stay in The EU.
had he not removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office within days of taking power.
The battle of Churchill's bust is more complicated than commonly reported and since there is still one on display in the private residence of the White House, I don't think you can say much about Obama's view of the UK from it.
He makes his opinions on Britain (especially in regard to Kenya) and Europe perfectly clear in his biography. No one seems to have read it though.
Of course if the US hadn't indicated their willingness to enter WWI then Germany's proposed peace deal in 1916, based on the pre-war status quo, would have been accepted.
Excuse my ignore, but how do you go about getting the mass of live information that Betfair produces? There seems to be an API for building third-party apps, but I can't find any access to the data for an average punter.
Mr. 1000, indeed, and we should vote on the basis of our interest, not be swayed by a foreign leader whose interest is not ours.
Given that a key part of the leave case is that by leaving the EU we are going to gain a lot more influence and clout internationally, I think it's worth listening to the leader of one of the countries we are going to have to work with in order to get a feel for how Brexit is viewed from his country's perspective. The US is one of the country's we have been told that we can quickly negotiate a beneficial trade deal with, isn't it?
Imagine the outrage had Ronald Reagan or George Bush arrived in London to tell Thatcher or Blair to stay in The EU.
had he not removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office within days of taking power.
The battle of Churchill's bust is more complicated than commonly reported and since there is still one on display in the private residence of the White House, I don't think you can say much about Obama's view of the UK from it.
The idea....... that President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day.
If as Obama argues American sacrifice gives them a say in Europe's future then surely Soviet sacrifice gives the Russians an even larger say, in fact an overwhelming one, but I don't suppose Obama would want that.
The truth is Obama's opinions are not about what is best for Britain, or the EU, but what is best for America. Fair enough, he is entitled to speak, but we should bear in mind he's not British, he doesn't speak for us, and he does not have our interests in mind when he offers his opinion.
We can discard two group of individuals as suspects...70's entertainers and (former) MPs....either of those and we would definitely know the names of those being suspected of wrong doing.
Yep - very good. But let's not forget the Zionist dog-whistle the hard left is so fond of.
Yes, though I also think it's dangerous to take the line that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism, as one of the critics of the new NUS president did yesterday. As someone who is not remotely anti-Semitic and not hostile to Israel (I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel), I'd reject the idea from *both* extremes that if you're critical about Israel's policies you thereby take a sceptical view of Jewish people in general. Zionism in practice has come to mean "what Israel's government does" (historically it was about Israel's right to exist), specifically in the context of expansion and settlement, and it should be possible to be against that in quite some depth without thereby being seen as anti-Semitic. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of the real nutters on far left and far right who actually are anti-Semitic.
After Brexit, life goes on Southam and everyone will adjust to the new realities.
With regard to the trade relations with the US, we will have the excellent option of moving to unilateral free trade, which will reduce the costs of imports from the US and boost our living standards (lower shop prices) and competitiveness (cheaper inputs). That move would be positive for the US as well as they would probably take market share in the UK off other EU countries.
Given we are such a big net contributor to the EU, I find it hard to believe we will lose money by leaving. Leave need to hammer the cost of living, wage suppression and competition for jobs effect of free movement, especially to people in my age group.
Trump looks good in southern Indiana (Upper South/Greater Appalachia) and NW around Chicago. As prior primaries suggested. South Dakota and Montana do look decent chances. Oregon looks better than Washington. New Mexico might go more like Texas than Arizona.
I've had a look at Pennsylvania and think Trump is heading for 17 bound, 29 unbound delegates that will support him on the first ballot.
Imagine the outrage had Ronald Reagan or George Bush arrived in London to tell Thatcher or Blair to stay in The EU.
had he not removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office within days of taking power.
The battle of Churchill's bust is more complicated than commonly reported and since there is still one on display in the private residence of the White House, I don't think you can say much about Obama's view of the UK from it.
He makes his opinions on Britain (especially in regard to Kenya) and Europe perfectly clear in his biography. No one seems to have read it though.
Of course if the US hadn't indicated their willingness to enter WWI then Germany's proposed peace deal in 1916, based on the pre-war status quo, would have been accepted.
I have read it. Obama hardly mentions us, which is not surprising given that at that time he had had very little contact with the UK. There are a couple of references to British colonialism, but that is fair game, is it not? We were a country than ran an Empire and did not always treat the people within it - including some of Obama's relatives - as well as we could have done. We are surely a big enough country to accept that.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Tell me how much sovereignty the USA surrenders to other nations?
Hypocrites.
When they entered into NATO, they committed to come to war to defend us. That's a pretty serious pooling of sovereignty.
Not really it's an implied quid pro quo but Congress retains the right to say "no" to any war on a case by case basis. The law is still determined by Congress, SCOTUS and the Presidential administration.
Your link actually says Congress would still be expected to authorise the use of military force. The point is there is no foreign court that or parliament that can compel the USA to undertake an action it's President and Congress opposes.
Yep - very good. But let's not forget the Zionist dog-whistle the hard left is so fond of.
Yes, though I also think it's dangerous to take the line that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism, as one of the critics of the new NUS president did yesterday. As someone who is not remotely anti-Semitic and not hostile to Israel (I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel), I'd reject the idea from *both* extremes that if you're critical about Israel's policies you thereby take a sceptical view of Jewish people in general. Zionism in practice has come to mean "what Israel's government does" (historically it was about Israel's right to exist), specifically in the context of expansion and settlement, and it should be possible to be against that in quite some depth without thereby being seen as anti-Semitic. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of the real nutters on far left and far right who actually are anti-Semitic.
Nick, wouldn't you expect the Israeli ambassador to promote the "anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic" equation and wouldn't you also expect them to spend money doing so?
FTAOD - I agree with Edward Said - the Palestinians "are the victims of victims".
A MAN is convinced that Britain should stay in Europe because he imagines it gives him continental flair.
Quantity surveyor Wayne Hayes, who believes himself a cut above the Little Englander types, argues that Brexit would make him look parochial and unworldly.
Yep - very good. But let's not forget the Zionist dog-whistle the hard left is so fond of.
Yes, though I also think it's dangerous to take the line that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism, as one of the critics of the new NUS president did yesterday. As someone who is not remotely anti-Semitic and not hostile to Israel (I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel), I'd reject the idea from *both* extremes that if you're critical about Israel's policies you thereby take a sceptical view of Jewish people in general. Zionism in practice has come to mean "what Israel's government does" (historically it was about Israel's right to exist), specifically in the context of expansion and settlement, and it should be possible to be against that in quite some depth without thereby being seen as anti-Semitic. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of the real nutters on far left and far right who actually are anti-Semitic.
Of course. Criticising the Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. So why not talk about the Israeli government instead of Zionism? Referring to Zionism instead oft he Israeli government looks very like the use of the term "radical" with egards to Khan, as described in the Guardian article.
On another note, Khan's campaign has been hugely impressive. It looks very much like a template for Labour as a whole to follow.
@DSORennie: Brexiteers denouncing Obama's "hypocrisy" should know that in Washington, #Brexit seen as a Lilliputian fantasy, not a bold act by an equal
Washington are exasperated that this referendum is happening at all, just as in Scotland two years ago.
They'd far rather the domestic politics of their allies overseas didn't interfere with their interests.
Morning morning
Thanks for that Woodford/Capital Economics piece you linked to. Very interesting.
I think it funnily enough confirms both sides' views.
For me, they expect an adverse outcome for the City; a questionable saving on contribution (given that a relatively small diminution in GDP growth, or lower immigration could wipe out any notional saving); no appreciable lack of "red tape" given, as they say, the UK's penchant for enhanced regulation; uncertainty over the tariff environment post-Brexit (and assuming no EFTA/EEA); less need to negotiate bilateral free trade deals with the RoW, given the falling tariff environment; an acknowledgement that the UK would be less able to determine the content and direction of the single market and its regulatory environment; plus other stuff.
For you, it is all tolerable because in the long run (!!) it shouldn't be too bad and the UK will find its position in the world following some short- and medium-term costs associated with Brexit. It also confirms the decrease in importance of the EU as an export market (although I hadn't seen the 63% export figure before: EU & EU-related). And I don't say that facetiously; the paper is saying the UK wouldn't collapse into a heap following Brexit, it outlines the various costs involved, but says that new opportunities could be available and further down the line we'll be fine.
This very much ties into my view of it not being a black and white issue, but one of nuances and degree.
I would also say that the paper could as easily be portrayed as pro-Remain.
From having watched it trade on Betfair it moved from 3 into about 2.7. Given the bookies are 3 to 2.9 for small size, offered at 3.75. About £1mm traded on that move. There is no way Ladbrokes would have made a price of 3 for a £1mm wager, so a much simpler hypothesis is that someone wanted to make a bet and took the best price rather than someone was willing to spend £1mm to temporarily move the line a tiny amount.
Mr. 1000, indeed, and we should vote on the basis of our interest, not be swayed by a foreign leader whose interest is not ours.
Given that a key part of the leave case is that by leaving the EU we are going to gain a lot more influence and clout internationally, I think it's worth listening to the leader of one of the countries we are going to have to work with in order to get a feel for how Brexit is viewed from his country's perspective. The US is one of the country's we have been told that we can quickly negotiate a beneficial trade deal with, isn't it?
The US mainstream political establishment would probably prefer if we stayed and avoided giving them a headache but, if we left, they would deal with it.
Yep - very good. But let's not forget the Zionist dog-whistle the hard left is so fond of.
Yes, though I also think it's dangerous to take the line that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism, as one of the critics of the new NUS president did yesterday. As someone who is not remotely anti-Semitic and not hostile to Israel (I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel), I'd reject the idea from *both* extremes that if you're critical about Israel's policies you thereby take a sceptical view of Jewish people in general. Zionism in practice has come to mean "what Israel's government does" (historically it was about Israel's right to exist), specifically in the context of expansion and settlement, and it should be possible to be against that in quite some depth without thereby being seen as anti-Semitic. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of the real nutters on far left and far right who actually are anti-Semitic.
This is a fair point by you. I would say though that Zionism still means the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and not simply just what the Israeli government does. There are those who try and make Zionism mean the latter (and obscure or ignore the former). But it is important to maintain the distinction precisely in order to keep criticism of what an Israeli government does separate from challenging the very right of Israel to exist. Unfortunately, there are too many people on the left (though not just there - but they are the most virulent and active at present) who do try and conflate the two precisely because they don't accept that Israel does have a right to exist and some may also have murderous intentions towards Jews in general.
On Topic - I hear suggestions that a certain Mr Zog from Albania may be the source of the multi-million betting on Brexit - the company names of Bralbania and Albritain were mentioned
Mr. 1000, indeed, and we should vote on the basis of our interest, not be swayed by a foreign leader whose interest is not ours.
Given that a key part of the leave case is that by leaving the EU we are going to gain a lot more influence and clout internationally, I think it's worth listening to the leader of one of the countries we are going to have to work with in order to get a feel for how Brexit is viewed from his country's perspective. The US is one of the country's we have been told that we can quickly negotiate a beneficial trade deal with, isn't it?
The US mainstream political establishment would probably prefer if we stayed and avoided giving them a headache but, if we left, they would deal with it.
I'd rather hear what they have to say, to be honest. Dealing with it can mean many different things.
I really hope Ruth does it and we oust Labour as the opposition party in Scotland. The SNP need a serious party to oppose them and SLAB are not a serious party, under Ruth the Tories have turned into a real party and while the result is obviously going to be a huge landslide for the SNP just as it was at the GE, we need to start somewhere and being the official opposition party will help gain some initiative among the 10% of SNP voters who are in the "No" camp and vote SNP because the opposition parties are laughable.
This is a fair point by you. I would say though that Zionism still means the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and not simply just what the Israeli government does. There are those who try and make Zionism mean the latter (and obscure or ignore the former). But it is important to maintain the distinction precisely in order to keep criticism of what an Israeli government does separate from challenging the very right of Israel to exist. Unfortunately, there are too many people on the left (though not just there - but they are the most virulent and active at present) who do try and conflate the two precisely because they don't accept that Israel does have a right to exist and some may also have murderous intentions towards Jews in general.
Yes, I agree. As with "socialism" and "Islamism" and various other isms, there is a tendency for people with agendas to try to make them fit the agendas, and the murderous context of anti-Semitism makes it especially important to oppose.
Yep - very good. But let's not forget the Zionist dog-whistle the hard left is so fond of.
Yes, though I also think it's dangerous to take the line that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism, as one of the critics of the new NUS president did yesterday. As someone who is not remotely anti-Semitic and not hostile to Israel (I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel), I'd reject the idea from *both* extremes that if you're critical about Israel's policies you thereby take a sceptical view of Jewish people in general. Zionism in practice has come to mean "what Israel's government does" (historically it was about Israel's right to exist), specifically in the context of expansion and settlement, and it should be possible to be against that in quite some depth without thereby being seen as anti-Semitic. Otherwise we are playing into the hands of the real nutters on far left and far right who actually are anti-Semitic.
Of course. Criticising the Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. So why not talk about the Israeli government instead of Zionism? Referring to Zionism instead oft he Israeli government looks very like the use of the term "radical" with egards to Khan, as described in the Guardian article.
On another note, Khan's campaign has been hugely impressive. It looks very much like a template for Labour as a whole to follow.
SO: I think some people use Zionism because it's a useful way of disguising their real anti-Semitism. In other words, it's a convenient cover. They are doing exactly what they accuse their critics of doing when they criticise them: deliberately mixing up Jews and Zionists. That's way precise language is so important and why it is important not to lose sight of the fact that Zionism - ever since it started - has meant self-determination for the Jewish people, precisely because some deny that they should have it, often the very same people who are frantically keen on self-determination for other peoples.
@SirSocks: The Brexiteers can't grasp that the Ref is not a domestic election but a choice of global significance in which many countries have a stake.
'Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.'
--------------------------
Yes, that's why they skewed the study and then skewed the interpretation of it yet further, to produce a 'big number'. Even if you then say the number is double what it should be, it's still 'big'.
Richard N tried this is on with me a few weeks ago, quoting exaggerated figures then admitting they looked a bit toppy but inviting me to meet him in the middle. Naturally I didn't.
Much better put than me!
Cheers.
Our side can of course do the reverse. Minford's study suggests the UK cost of living will fall 8% if we move to unilateral free trade, which is a very big welfare gain.
Perhaps we can be conservative and say it might not be quite as big as that. Will the REMAIN side meet us in the middle and agree to, say, a 5% gain in UK living standards from Brexit?
I watched Patrick Minford's interrogation by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which you linked to yesterday, and it confirmed to me that all these trade "deals" (EEA etc) and "models" (Norway, Switz etc) are beside the point. Just do away with all the self-harming protectionist measures and have unilateral free trade. Remainers insisting that some "deal" has to be the alternative is in fact special pleading for vested interests.
'I would also say that the paper could as easily be portrayed as pro-Remain.'
---------------------------------------------
While the Woodford's paper is overall quite good, it probably underplays the short-term benefits that the UK would reap from moving to a free trade environment.
There is a tendency to frame the argument as 'short costs but long-term adjustment' but this is far too simplistic.
In reality there would be both short term costs and short term gains - moving out of the protective system we are in will not be great for some industries and they will need to adjust. But it will also deliver immediate welfare gains for consumers and other industries.
Long term, the UK's prosperity is not served by being in a protectionist trade system which apart from trade distortion also imposes a significant unnecessary regulatory burden (on the domestic economy as well as the export sector). The long-term sign on GDP is almost certainly positive, I would say by several percentage points.
The value of 'trade agreements' in our new world would really be about mitigating the short-term costs of adjustment. The EU will want one for precisely this reason on their side, too.
The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not.
I do not, and that is the main reason I am voting LEAVE. I would vote LEAVE even if I thought the economics were negative - but happily that is not the case.
@SirSocks: The Brexiteers can't grasp that the Ref is not a domestic election but a choice of global significance in which many countries have a stake.
Whether other countries have a stake or not is irrelevant. This is a choice by the British people and it should be judged on our interests, not what others say or think.
I also watched the Patrick Minford link from the Select Committee hearing. I thought it was fascinating and excellent. He's a very good, clear, entertaining communicator and if his assessment is true it has altered my views on the risks to the UK economy in leaving the EU. Thanks for the link runnymede.
It's interesting to see the different interpretations of Zionism on display. I would instinctively see it as a term that denotes an ideology that is absolutely deserving of opposition: that of Israeli exceptionalism and expansionism without regard to the rights of others occupying territory that Israel wishes to control. Being anti-Zionist seems uncontroversial when defined in that manner. On the other hand, in the first half of the c20th it seems to have denoted the entirely reasonable ambition to establish a safe homeland for the Jewish people. I guess that those who conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are holding more to the latter definition, whereas those who don't get the fuss about it are using the former definition.
I guess the only safe formula is "I'm not anti-Semitic but I am opposed to Israel's exceptionalist foreign policy and human rights abuses". Takes longer to type, mind...
I also watched the Patrick Minford link from the Select Committee hearing. I thought it was fascinating and excellent. He's a very good, clear, entertaining communicator and if his assessment is true it has altered my views on the risks to the UK economy in leaving the EU. Thanks for the link runnymede.
Everyone should watch it, he was very good. I was impressed with the clarity of his explanations and by him not getting drawn into overly technical stuff and jargon - which is a common failing in my profession I'm afraid.
Completely off topic, interesting to note that Spurs and Chelsea are set to agree terms to a ground share for Wembley for 2017/18 with both paying £15m per season each to host home league, cup and European matches (with many league matches being played at a reduced capacity of 50,000). Contrast that with West Ham's crooked deal for £2.5m per year for the Olympic stadium.
I hope the next mayor has the balls to investigate the WHU/GLA deal for the stadium, a proper investigation not the whitewash we got last time. There is no way that £2.5m per season accurately reflects the value of it, especially considering WHU are set to sell naming rights for ~£6m per year. The GLA could and should have walked away from this deal until WHU upped their bid, at the moment WHU aren't paying for the conversion and they look set to gain between £3-5m per season depending on how much they get for naming rights. All while Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal will spend between £300m and £500m for development of a new or existing stadium out of private money and Spurs and Chelsea are looking at £15m per season for rental of Wembley with capacity restrictions on at least 10 matches each per year.
I really hope Ruth does it and we oust Labour as the opposition party in Scotland. The SNP need a serious party to oppose them and SLAB are not a serious party, under Ruth the Tories have turned into a real party and while the result is obviously going to be a huge landslide for the SNP just as it was at the GE, we need to start somewhere and being the official opposition party will help gain some initiative among the 10% of SNP voters who are in the "No" camp and vote SNP because the opposition parties are laughable.
Can you name some of the other SCon msps that you admire?
Btw there's no such thing as the 'official opposition' at Holyrood.
Whether other countries have a stake or not is irrelevant. This is a choice by the British people and it should be judged on our interests, not what others say or think.
Well quite, I really don't get this mindset at all. We're giving ourselves away to suit others. Insane.
This is a fair point by you. I would say though that Zionism still means the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and not simply just what the Israeli government does. There are those who try and make Zionism mean the latter (and obscure or ignore the former). But it is important to maintain the distinction precisely in order to keep criticism of what an Israeli government does separate from challenging the very right of Israel to exist. Unfortunately, there are too many people on the left (though not just there - but they are the most virulent and active at present) who do try and conflate the two precisely because they don't accept that Israel does have a right to exist and some may also have murderous intentions towards Jews in general.
Yes, I agree. As with "socialism" and "Islamism" and various other isms, there is a tendency for people with agendas to try to make them fit the agendas, and the murderous context of anti-Semitism makes it especially important to oppose.
Contrast that with West Ham's crooked deal for £2.5m per year for the Olympic stadium.
I hope the next mayor has the balls to investigate the WHU/GLA deal for the stadium, a proper investigation not the whitewash we got last time. There is no way that £2.5m per season accurately reflects the value of it, especially considering WHU are set to sell naming rights for ~£6m per year. The GLA could and should have walked away from this deal until WHU upped their bid, at the moment WHU aren't paying for the conversion and they look set to gain between £3-5m per season depending on how much they get for naming rights. All while Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal will spend between £300m and £500m for development of a new or existing stadium out of private money and Spurs and Chelsea are looking at £15m per season for rental of Wembley with capacity restrictions on at least 10 matches each per year.
I suggest you read the actual agreement and familiarise yourself with the precedent at Manchester City.
West Ham have bailed out the taxpayer, not the other way round.
'I would also say that the paper could as easily be portrayed as pro-Remain.'
---------------------------------------------
While the Woodford's paper is overall quite good, it probably underplays the short-term benefits that the UK would reap from moving to a free trade environment.
There is a tendency to frame the argument as 'short costs but long-term adjustment' but this is far too simplistic.
In reality there would be both short term costs and short term gains - moving out of the protective system we are in will not be great for some industries and they will need to adjust. But it will also deliver immediate welfare gains for consumers and other industries.
Long term, the UK's prosperity is not served by being in a protectionist trade system which apart from trade distortion also imposes a significant unnecessary regulatory burden (on the domestic economy as well as the export sector). The long-term sign on GDP is almost certainly positive, I would say by several percentage points.
The value of 'trade agreements' in our new world would really be about mitigating the short-term costs of adjustment. The EU will want one for precisely this reason on their side, too.
The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not.
I do not, and that is the main reason I am voting LEAVE. I would vote LEAVE even if I thought the economics were negative - but happily that is not the case.
The paper also suggests NAFTA as a possible option. It also says that there is tremendous growth potential in China (as though we found China down the back of the Brexit sofa, rather than having had a long and "interesting" relationship with it for centuries).
The real issue is that the world is full of trading partnerships, organisation, common interest groups. 63% of our exports are in some way EU-dependent and so it makes sense and is of common interest for our grouping to be with the EU.
The various impositions into our sovereignty (VAT? WTD?) not only do I not perceive as particularly egregious, but, as the paper also points out, most measures are usually something that the Brits have taken a lead on, rather than an imposition from sovereignty-violating EU.
As for the EU's world dominance aspirations, that is precisely what Dave's deal addressed.
Someone who is likely to be the next President of France wants us to Leave the EU.
That should convince every true and patriotic Englishman/woman to back Remain.
Allied foreign political leaders that have worked with David Cameron and want him to remain in office, and don't have any interest in any disruption to the established international political order, will either actively help him by request or stay silent if they privately disagree. I don't see that as any surprise.
Very few will publicly go against him except those who've left office, lost office or those who seek to attain it.
That's why Rubio has a different tone, and why John Howard and Stephen Harper do.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Contrast that with West Ham's crooked deal for £2.5m per year for the Olympic stadium.
I hope the next mayor has the balls to investigate the WHU/GLA deal for the stadium, a proper investigation not the whitewash we got last time. There is no way that £2.5m per season accurately reflects the value of it, especially considering WHU are set to sell naming rights for ~£6m per year. The GLA could and should have walked away from this deal until WHU upped their bid, at the moment WHU aren't paying for the conversion and they look set to gain between £3-5m per season depending on how much they get for naming rights. All while Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal will spend between £300m and £500m for development of a new or existing stadium out of private money and Spurs and Chelsea are looking at £15m per season for rental of Wembley with capacity restrictions on at least 10 matches each per year.
I suggest you read the actual agreement and familiarise yourself with the precedent at Manchester City.
West Ham have bailed out the taxpayer, not the other way round.
Yes, a bail out at a cost of almost £300m to convert the stadium. Some bail out.
Mr. 1000, indeed, and we should vote on the basis of our interest, not be swayed by a foreign leader whose interest is not ours.
Given that a key part of the leave case is that by leaving the EU we are going to gain a lot more influence and clout internationally, I think it's worth listening to the leader of one of the countries we are going to have to work with in order to get a feel for how Brexit is viewed from his country's perspective. The US is one of the country's we have been told that we can quickly negotiate a beneficial trade deal with, isn't it?
The US mainstream political establishment would probably prefer if we stayed and avoided giving them a headache but, if we left, they would deal with it.
I'd rather hear what they have to say, to be honest. Dealing with it can mean many different things.
If we leave, the realpolitik of the situation will have changed and therefore so, automatically, will the American interest.
They will be interested in how we can continue to stabilise and influence Europe from outside the European Union, and also the new opportunities for bilateral agreements and global cooperation that it opens up.
Comments
The statement about cemeteries is vile. What about all the British soldiers who have died fighting wars for the US, for example in Afghanistan and Iraq? Butt out, Obama!
If there's an argument for Remain here, it's that no British soldiers have been reported to have died fighting wars recently for France or Germany. They are far less martial countries than the US, and much better to have as friends than the world bully.
If anyone is interested in finding out about views on EU membership in British army circles, they should go to the forums on the army's main (unofficial) site. There is huge support among British soldiers and their families for leaving the EU.
(There is also large support among British soldiers for the view that the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria are essentially part of the same antagonism as exists in places like Bradford.)
I think Obama will tickle the tummies of Guardianistas and graduates, but few others.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2016-04-21/trump-wave-builds-in-a-steel-town-forsaken-by-the-world-economy
Meanwhile ....
Daniel Strauss of "Politico" looks at the dead end future of the Sander's campaign :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernies-rough-road-ahead-222230
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.
And we are entitled to take into account, as well as his record, when he speaks.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j84xm835ui/RedBoxResults_140904_Obama_W.pdf
(Tho UKIP voters are the least favourable, 'good job net: Con: +53, UKIP: +19)
Hypocrites.
The battle of Churchill's bust is more complicated than commonly reported and since there is still one on display in the private residence of the White House, I don't think you can say much about Obama's view of the UK from it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill
I didn't mention his EU views.
Now, how about that trade deal?
'Re £4,300 - I'm sorry but it was excellent politics.
The discussion became "we are not really going to be £4k worse off, that's too much" rather than "if we leave the EU, we could be better off". Remain framed the debate, to our detriment.'
--------------------------
Yes, that's why they skewed the study and then skewed the interpretation of it yet further, to produce a 'big number'. Even if you then say the number is double what it should be, it's still 'big'.
Richard N tried this is on with me a few weeks ago, quoting exaggerated figures then admitting they looked a bit toppy but inviting me to meet him in the middle. Naturally I didn't.
That should convince every true and patriotic Englishman/woman to back Remain.
Fascinating how accurate isidewith is for areas of strength for Cruz and Trump.
http://www.isidewith.com/map/JrQv/2016-presidential-election-donald-trump-vs-ted-cruz#z5
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map
Trump looks good in southern Indiana (Upper South/Greater Appalachia) and NW around Chicago. As prior primaries suggested.
South Dakota and Montana do look decent chances. Oregon looks better than Washington. New Mexico might go more like Texas than Arizona.
The nation awaits ....
Noteworthy how the respective campaigns have evolved :
REMAIN have gone from Project Fear to Project Apocalypse
LEAVE have morphed from Project Titter to Project Whinge
Our side can of course do the reverse. Minford's study suggests the UK cost of living will fall 8% if we move to unilateral free trade, which is a very big welfare gain.
Perhaps we can be conservative and say it might not be quite as big as that. Will the REMAIN side meet us in the middle and agree to, say, a 5% gain in UK living standards from Brexit?
https://www.quora.com/If-Article-V-of-NATO-were-invoked-due-to-an-attack-on-a-non-US-member-nation-would-Congress-still-have-to-pass-a-declaration-of-war
They'd far rather the domestic politics of their allies overseas didn't interfere with their interests.
Of course if the US hadn't indicated their willingness to enter WWI then Germany's proposed peace deal in 1916, based on the pre-war status quo, would have been accepted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3553000/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Gang-rape-Kent-shocking-conspiracy-silence.html
The truth is Obama's opinions are not about what is best for Britain, or the EU, but what is best for America. Fair enough, he is entitled to speak, but we should bear in mind he's not British, he doesn't speak for us, and he does not have our interests in mind when he offers his opinion.
"Boris Johnson has apologised for referring to black people as "piccaninnies" and talking about "watermelon smiles". "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race
With regard to the trade relations with the US, we will have the excellent option of moving to unilateral free trade, which will reduce the costs of imports from the US and boost our living standards (lower shop prices) and competitiveness (cheaper inputs). That move would be positive for the US as well as they would probably take market share in the UK off other EU countries.
Scottish Parliament voting intention (list): SNP: 43% (-1) CON: 18% (+2) LAB: 17% (-2) GRN: 11% (+1) LDEM: 7% (+1) UKIP: 4% (-)
Tories fighting for second again.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mPatwSu0dv8n3ZaCLm86KzJ3LUfDyJWaMpBSRukjd4w/edit#gid=984584906
FTAOD - I agree with Edward Said - the Palestinians "are the victims of victims".
A MAN is convinced that Britain should stay in Europe because he imagines it gives him continental flair.
Quantity surveyor Wayne Hayes, who believes himself a cut above the Little Englander types, argues that Brexit would make him look parochial and unworldly.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/man-voting-to-stay-in-eu-because-he-thinks-hes-sophisticated-20160422108212
On another note, Khan's campaign has been hugely impressive. It looks very much like a template for Labour as a whole to follow.
Thanks for that Woodford/Capital Economics piece you linked to. Very interesting.
I think it funnily enough confirms both sides' views.
For me, they expect an adverse outcome for the City; a questionable saving on contribution (given that a relatively small diminution in GDP growth, or lower immigration could wipe out any notional saving); no appreciable lack of "red tape" given, as they say, the UK's penchant for enhanced regulation; uncertainty over the tariff environment post-Brexit (and assuming no EFTA/EEA); less need to negotiate bilateral free trade deals with the RoW, given the falling tariff environment; an acknowledgement that the UK would be less able to determine the content and direction of the single market and its regulatory environment; plus other stuff.
For you, it is all tolerable because in the long run (!!) it shouldn't be too bad and the UK will find its position in the world following some short- and medium-term costs associated with Brexit. It also confirms the decrease in importance of the EU as an export market (although I hadn't seen the 63% export figure before: EU & EU-related). And I don't say that facetiously; the paper is saying the UK wouldn't collapse into a heap following Brexit, it outlines the various costs involved, but says that new opportunities could be available and further down the line we'll be fine.
This very much ties into my view of it not being a black and white issue, but one of nuances and degree.
I would also say that the paper could as easily be portrayed as pro-Remain.
Perhaps having met Cameron they're under the impression that all Brits are too lazy to think for themselves?
@Robert___Harris: Remain have Barack Obama and Leave have Marine Le Pen. What could be fairer than that? https://t.co/0lSzjRIKP4
'I would also say that the paper could as easily be portrayed as pro-Remain.'
---------------------------------------------
While the Woodford's paper is overall quite good, it probably underplays the short-term benefits that the UK would reap from moving to a free trade environment.
There is a tendency to frame the argument as 'short costs but long-term adjustment' but this is far too simplistic.
In reality there would be both short term costs and short term gains - moving out of the protective system we are in will not be great for some industries and they will need to adjust. But it will also deliver immediate welfare gains for consumers and other industries.
Long term, the UK's prosperity is not served by being in a protectionist trade system which apart from trade distortion also imposes a significant unnecessary regulatory burden (on the domestic economy as well as the export sector). The long-term sign on GDP is almost certainly positive, I would say by several percentage points.
The value of 'trade agreements' in our new world would really be about mitigating the short-term costs of adjustment. The EU will want one for precisely this reason on their side, too.
The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not.
I do not, and that is the main reason I am voting LEAVE. I would vote LEAVE even if I thought the economics were negative - but happily that is not the case.
Whether other countries have a stake or not is irrelevant. This is a choice by the British people and it should be judged on our interests, not what others say or think.
It's interesting to see the different interpretations of Zionism on display. I would instinctively see it as a term that denotes an ideology that is absolutely deserving of opposition: that of Israeli exceptionalism and expansionism without regard to the rights of others occupying territory that Israel wishes to control. Being anti-Zionist seems uncontroversial when defined in that manner. On the other hand, in the first half of the c20th it seems to have denoted the entirely reasonable ambition to establish a safe homeland for the Jewish people. I guess that those who conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are holding more to the latter definition, whereas those who don't get the fuss about it are using the former definition.
I guess the only safe formula is "I'm not anti-Semitic but I am opposed to Israel's exceptionalist foreign policy and human rights abuses". Takes longer to type, mind...
Some of the MPs were embarrassing .
For those who missed it, here it is again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg4VJPrNFeY
I hope the next mayor has the balls to investigate the WHU/GLA deal for the stadium, a proper investigation not the whitewash we got last time. There is no way that £2.5m per season accurately reflects the value of it, especially considering WHU are set to sell naming rights for ~£6m per year. The GLA could and should have walked away from this deal until WHU upped their bid, at the moment WHU aren't paying for the conversion and they look set to gain between £3-5m per season depending on how much they get for naming rights. All while Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal will spend between £300m and £500m for development of a new or existing stadium out of private money and Spurs and Chelsea are looking at £15m per season for rental of Wembley with capacity restrictions on at least 10 matches each per year.
Btw there's no such thing as the 'official opposition' at Holyrood.
West Ham have bailed out the taxpayer, not the other way round.
The real issue is that the world is full of trading partnerships, organisation, common interest groups. 63% of our exports are in some way EU-dependent and so it makes sense and is of common interest for our grouping to be with the EU.
The various impositions into our sovereignty (VAT? WTD?) not only do I not perceive as particularly egregious, but, as the paper also points out, most measures are usually something that the Brits have taken a lead on, rather than an imposition from sovereignty-violating EU.
As for the EU's world dominance aspirations, that is precisely what Dave's deal addressed.
Very few will publicly go against him except those who've left office, lost office or those who seek to attain it.
That's why Rubio has a different tone, and why John Howard and Stephen Harper do.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Very concisely put. That is exactly how I see it.
They will be interested in how we can continue to stabilise and influence Europe from outside the European Union, and also the new opportunities for bilateral agreements and global cooperation that it opens up.