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.
Ruth! Beyond that it doesn't really matter and being the largest party outside of the ruling one carries its own status. I know to SNP supporters it must seem mad, like two starving dogs fighting over a scrap the owner has dropped from the table, but small victories are better than no victories.
"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.
Yes. What we have to decide is whether we're willing to take a 1-2 year GDP hit and restructuring. That is always going to be present in leaving an economic union so, if that isn't acceptable to the British public, then one wonders if we can ever Leave.
On the plus side, in the medium-long term the economic prospects outside are bright, and we get full independence back.
I calculate that's worth it. I appreciate others may not reach the same conclusion.
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it in the hope that without us it wouldn't happen? Surely if it did being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
@theobertram: Brexit just perfect for Boris: - Trump-like dominance of coverage - clear blue water from Cameron - a leadership campaign by any other name
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
If we stay in the EU they will marginalise and discriminate against us whereas if we leave...
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
It's good to see Aaron Bell's name appear again on PB.com ( albeit within the header on this occasion). At one time he was an every day stalwart contributor, and working for a major bookie certainly knew his betting onions.
@DPJHodges: In another example of the Out campaign's deft diplomatic and political touch, Boris refers to Obama as "the part-Kenyan President".
Now, how about that trade deal?
The half-Kenyan lame duck Is fair game. He chose to stick his beak in.
Perhaps he was encouraged by the concentrated bout of Unionist ass licking after his Indy intervention.
Was there a single soul in Scotland who took a blind bit of notice of him?
Feck knows, but Bettertogether certainly went into overdrive literally minutes after Obama's intervention. All that stuff (Obama, Bowie, the Vow, Beckham, Queenie etc) was depicted as massive coups at the time but after the event it's 'no, no, entirely irrelevant, the Scottish people have spoken without pressure, bribe or threat'.
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.
West Ham offered to buy the place - lock, stock and barrel. The total rental /payback over the lease is likely to be well over £500m.
The LLDC could have flattened it as Spurs wanted, or they could have left Orient to fill the front row. Or they could have left it empty.
Instead, they have it sold out at 54,000 next year with all the economic benefits that brings.
The LLDC and LBN get the first £4m of every year's naming rights on the deal in addition to the rent, they have a progressive percentage on any sell on by West Ham's owners within the next ten years , get performance bonuses linked to West Ham in the PL etc, and West Ham's use is limited to 25 days a year.
For 340 days a year, the stadium belongs to the community.
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.
Surely it's up to voters to decide if they want to take account of external views. I for example might listen to Obama - Marine Le Pen or Putin - maybe not.
Why is Barack Obama so against a free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain? What's the beef with that?
He is supporting the free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain we have now.
Why do you hate it so much?
If Britain is already free and independent, then why do millions want to leave?
I disagree with Trump on much, but I agree with him on this. If you don;t control immigration, if the citizens don;t have the final say on who comes in, you don;t have a country.
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
Ha Ha. As if we could ever stop it happening from the inside! There was a chance when the EU was 13 countries, but now it's 28?
When one sees the UK being outvoted by countries such as landlocked Luxembourg on the decision over EU Ports Services Regulation (PSR), which will have a serious and detrimental effect on the industry in this country, anyone with a functioning brain realises that reform is nigh on impossible.
'ABP chief executive James Cooper went on record during London International Shipping Week to say that the PSR would “adversely affect the balance of risk and reward for investors in our industry”.
“While this might not have much impact on our mainland cousins whose ports are almost universally state funded, the proposed changes are especially important for UK ports that rely overwhelmingly on private funding to deliver new infrastructure and facilities on behalf of their customers.”
HMG gave up any attempt at fighting this last Autumn, Robert Goodwill being sent out to wave the white flag on our behalf.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
Just read some of Blackburn's posts for some clues
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.
Why? They may well decide they have all they need from the UK market and that more is not necessary if it involves giving greater opportunities than we have currently. They may also decide that on our own we are less worth cultivating. The realpolitik is that we will be a medium-sized country that the US already has plenty of access to.
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.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it in the hope that without us it wouldn't happen? Surely if it did being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
I think the point CR is making is that it is going to happen whether we are in it or not, and since we don't want to be part of the EU superstate, we are better of leaving now when the cost of separation is still relatively low. We are a nation of 65m people and have a nuclear deterrent, the world is a dangerous place already but our nuclear deterrent doesn't disappear overnight if we leave (our deterrent is independent and the Polaris sales agreement is not dependent on our membership of the EU and neither the US nor UK can abrogate that treaty easily).
On being lonely, to a certain extent we already are, in or out we are pretty friendless in the world and we seem to be going out of our way to irritate Australia, NZ and Canada with harsh immigration rules to get numbers down because we can't reduce EU immigration at all without swingeing cuts to our welfare state and qualifying rules introduced for everyone. For sure within the EU I can only name Sweden and Denmark as countries who are reliably in the same camp as us, sometimes the Germans tag along with our agenda but they are afraid of causing a "historic split" between the Franco-Deutsche axis too often so back down to French demands more often than they should.
A nation such as ours is never going to find itself being loved by anyone, it is a country with a violent and bloody history of conquest. The nations subjected to that resent Britain for putting them through it and the rest are jealous of the wealth and power that came with the Empire and were glad to see the managed decline of it and revelled in this nation's decline from global superpower to backwater from 1950-1970.
If we could successfully cleave Germany away from France then I would be in favour of staying and fighting it out, but the chances of that are remote, we are the mistress who Germany promises to leave his wife for but has no intention of doing so, and it will remain that way.
Once again we see how EU supporters are so used to just following foreign orders, they can only think of the EU referendum as a matter of which one to follow. The idea of thinking for themselves does not come into it.
Mr. Felix, meddling in foreign votes is wrong, whether that's a cretinous debate about Donald Trump in Westminster, or Obama pontificating about the EU and using dead men from before he was born as justification.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
An opt out that no other EU nation is obligated to recognise. You have consistently failed to address this point. Unless our opt-out is recognised in a current or future treaty and ratified by all 28 nations of the EU it is worthless, even then it would have to withstand an ECJ investigation.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
I'm sorry you appear unable or unwilling to engage with the economic points, and instead feel the need to resort to slogans. But hopefully other readers are interested by these issues.
Mr. Felix, meddling in foreign votes is wrong, whether that's a cretinous debate about Donald Trump in Westminster, or Obama pontificating about the EU and using dead men from before he was born as justification.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
An opt out that no other EU nation is obligated to recognise. You have consistently failed to address this point. Unless our opt-out is recognised in a current or future treaty and ratified by all 28 nations of the EU it is worthless, even then it would have to withstand an ECJ investigation.
I can't address a hypothetical future event. All I know is that 28 EU nations came together and produced a text which formally excused the UK from ECU. Is it in a treaty yet? Nope. Could it be struck down by the ECJ as M Gove cheekily suggested? I suppose so.
But my point remains when answering this question previously: why on earth would the leaders of the 27 EU nations agree a text with the UK that they intended to renege upon at the earliest opportunity? As I have also said many, many times, and it's a PoV I respect: if you really think the EU is such a mendacious institution, collectively, then Leave is definitely for you.
On topic, if the offshore dwelling Dr Evil billionaire throwing money at betfair wanted to make LEAVE look good, he or she could have quite simply donated to the LEAVE campaign...????
Mr. Felix, meddling in foreign votes is wrong, whether that's a cretinous debate about Donald Trump in Westminster, or Obama pontificating about the EU and using dead men from before he was born as justification.
Thank you for your opinion. You're starting to sound like some of the other 'angry old men' on here. Simply remember an opinion is not a fact.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
I'm sorry you appear unable or unwilling to engage with the economic points, and instead feel the need to resort to slogans. But hopefully other readers are interested by these issues.
What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue."
I thought the name was familiar (former aide to Margaret Thatcher and a foreign policy adviser to two US presidential campaigns). Nile Gardiner wrote an article entitled "Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain – 2011 edition" in the Telegraph and updated it in 2012 and 2013. But searching for these articles is nowadays hampered by the Telegraph's new website which just redirects a Google search to today's page. You have to get the cached version of the search result. The familiar catalogue of insults is a strong reminder that Obama is no friend of this country.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
An opt out that no other EU nation is obligated to recognise. You have consistently failed to address this point. Unless our opt-out is recognised in a current or future treaty and ratified by all 28 nations of the EU it is worthless, even then it would have to withstand an ECJ investigation.
I can't address a hypothetical future event. All I know is that 28 EU nations came together and produced a text which formally excused the UK from ECU. Is it in a treaty yet? Nope. Could it be struck down by the ECJ as M Gove cheekily suggested? I suppose so.
But my point remains when answering this question previously: why on earth would the leaders of the 27 EU nations agree a text with the UK that they intended to renege upon at the earliest opportunity? As I have also said many, many times, and it's a PoV I respect: if you really think the EU is such a mendacious institution, collectively, then Leave is definitely for you.
What Merkel agrees to doesn't tie the hands of her successors. Same for the other 26 EU leaders. Only a treaty obligation to recognise our opt-out will force future leaders to respect the opt-out, without that they are under no obligation to do so.
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.
Why? They may well decide they have all they need from the UK market and that more is not necessary if it involves giving greater opportunities than we have currently. They may also decide that on our own we are less worth cultivating. The realpolitik is that we will be a medium-sized country that the US already has plenty of access to.
Trade deals are done when two countries (or blocs) have a mutual interest in doing so. If both sides see an advantage, they will do a deal. If they do not, they won't.
On the one hand TTIP simplifies transatlantic trade into one very large, albeit very longwinded, negotiation and, by necessity, it involves lots of compromise. On the other hand a UK-US trade deal would be simpler (two governments only to deal with) and could be more easily considered in the British interest.
The U.K. will continue to be a very major economy when it Leaves and its biggest trading partner is the US. I think it's inconceivable there wouldn't be an appetite for a deal.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
'What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue'
I am quite happy to restrict this discussion to economics if you prefer, but you seem not to prefer that. I have posted as to why the 63% statistic you quoted is unhelpful and as to why your argument that we need to be part of a regional economic trade grouping is economically fallacious.
You have responded by caricaturing that view as 'cry freedom' and 'up yours'. Hence my regretful previous post.
The U.K. will continue to be a very major economy when it Leaves and its biggest trading partner is the US. I think it's inconceivable there wouldn't be an appetite for a deal.
Why should we want one? cf Patrick Minford evidence referred to earlier.
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
Or practical politics
Yes, this is realpolitik. Trump has a 50/50 shot of beating Hillary, not making nice with him would be stupid. It feels like the Tories are reading the same runes as many others and realise that Hillary is a stronger candidate on paper than she is in real life. My other half watched a video of all four candidates giving different speeches. Going in she thought Hillary was the best candidate and Trump the worst, afterwards she thought Bernie the best and Cruz the worst and put Trump ahead of Hillary.
People who say that the US wouldn't want to have a trade relationship with the UK if we vote to leave should take note of this move though.
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 don't think that is what he was saying. It was very well crafted and the interweaving of the war was just to illustrate why and how our two countries became so close. How our values are the same and how we are jointly spreading them more widely. This paragraph was the crux;
"As citizens of the United Kingdom take stock of their relationship with the EU, you should be proud that the EU has helped spread British values and practices – democracy, the rule of law, open markets – across the continent and to its periphery. The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it. A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership. The United States sees how your powerful voice in Europe ensures that Europe takes a strong stance in the world, and keeps the EU open, outward looking, and closely linked to its allies on the other side of the Atlantic. So the US and the world need your outsized influence to continue – including within Europe."
I am in two minds about Obama's intervention and await hearing it this afternoon. His tone will be very important because if he comes over as lecturing us even I as a 'remainer' would not be at all impressed, but if he comes over as a friend and it is perceived as such by the large number of undecided's than the only conclusion would be that it will have a positive influence for remain. The anger shown by leave is very understandable but they need to be careful that their re-action is not perceived as over the top as this could have an adverse effect on their perfectly legitimate case
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
Or practical politics
Probably practical politics, but it sticks in the craw to watch foreign government people being wheeled out to tell us the voters what to do, with our PM smiling on thanking them for telling us what to do. Weak , weak, weak is what Blair called Major. They can all (including Le Pen) just politely eff off.
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
Yes I understand the Cry Freedom argument. It is an extremely compelling and satisfying one. No EU overlords, freedom to do as we please, Up Yours, etc...
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
I'm sorry you appear unable or unwilling to engage with the economic points, and instead feel the need to resort to slogans. But hopefully other readers are interested by these issues.
What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue."
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
Or practical politics
Probably practical politics, but it sticks in the craw to watch foreign government people being wheeled out to tell us the voters what to do, with our PM smiling on thanking them for telling us what to do. Weak , weak, weak is what Blair called Major. They can all (including Le Pen) just politely eff off.
David Cameron is emerging as a leader with two personalities.
One when he is at home, where he has power. The other abroad where he thinks he has none.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
Or practical politics
Probably practical politics, but it sticks in the craw to watch foreign government people being wheeled out to tell us the voters what to do, with our PM smiling on thanking them for telling us what to do. Weak , weak, weak is what Blair called Major. They can all (including Le Pen) just politely eff off.
I think you are conflating the issue with Obama and the possibility, remote and hopefully not, that Trump does indeed win the POTUS. In some way it has parallels with the current anger of leave with Obama as there is a similar issue that post the referendum or the US elections parties may well have to deal with leaders they have annoyed previously. I appreciate that Obama will not be POTUS but almost certainly Clinton will be and she is bound to share Obama's attitude to the referendum
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
Agreed Rog, your threads have been great so far, looking forward to the next one (and Cyclefree's!).
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
"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.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
Agreed Rog, your threads have been great so far, looking forward to the next one (and Cyclefree's!).
'What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue'
I am quite happy to restrict this discussion to economics if you prefer, but you seem not to prefer that. I have posted as to why the 63% statistic you quoted is unhelpful and as to why your argument that we need to be part of a regional economic trade grouping is economically fallacious.
You have responded by caricaturing that view as 'cry freedom' and 'up yours'. Hence my regretful previous post.
63% vs 44% is a bit of fluff. Let's go with 44% if you prefer.
I think the Woodford paper is useful as it gives a range of expected outcomes and concludes that the measurable economics of Brexit, in the short- to medium-term are for there to be disadvantages, in particular for the financial services sector, but also for other sectors. It also points out that wrt cutting red tape and saving our contribution, there are mitigating factors which would make the benefit from each element far from clear (the UK likes a bit of red tape on the one hand, and likely decrease in GDP and immigration will compensate for our EU contribution saving on the other).
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
Bloke down the pub finds trillions in back of envelope calculation.
Yet it is still more robust tha Osborne calculating a GDP difference between two scenarios in 2030, dividing it by the number of households in 2015, and then claiming it is the loss to household income.
Once again we see how Remain supporters have to focus on individuals making the arguments, because they are not bright enough to understand the arguments themselves. It is the mentality of followers, not leaders. But I suppose that's why they wish to follow Brussels in the first place.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
I'll say it again, there's no way Boris will make the final two of the next Tory leadership contest.
Is any foreign leader safe from the bile of some on here for expressing a view - oh yes Putin and maybe king Zog [deceased].
Vlad and his little helpers are regularly mocked.
For some strange reason, those suggesting that Putin's views hold any influence, all seem to be Remainians.
Does Putin really give a toss whether Britain is inside the EU or not? I doubt it.
Putin wants European disunity; ideally he'd like to see NATO and the EU dismantled.
Fortunately, the low oil price is likely to force him from power before long.
Displaying your savvy as both an investor and geopolitical analyst there, If only either were a fraction of the enormous self regard you evidently have for yourself. . A deeply unhealthy obsession you seem to have.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
I'll say it again, there's no way Boris will make the final two of the next Tory leadership contest.
Hes still a genius, as next month, when the tories are slaughtered by a horribly flawed and divisive candidate, will show.
@Robert_Harris: One minute the right complain Obama doesn't offer leadership in the world, then he says something anodyne and they accuse him of interfering
Why is Barack Obama so against a free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain? What's the beef with that?
He is supporting the free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain we have now.
Why do you hate it so much?
If Britain is already free and independent, then why do millions want to leave?
I disagree with Trump on much, but I agree with him on this. If you don;t control immigration, if the citizens don;t have the final say on who comes in, you don;t have a country.
I take it you are OK with Brits emigrating overseas. Like settling in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, US.......................over hundreds of years. Spain.........south of France...
'What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue'
I am quite happy to restrict this discussion to economics if you prefer, but you seem not to prefer that. I have posted as to why the 63% statistic you quoted is unhelpful and as to why your argument that we need to be part of a regional economic trade grouping is economically fallacious.
You have responded by caricaturing that view as 'cry freedom' and 'up yours'. Hence my regretful previous post.
63% vs 44% is a bit of fluff. Let's go with 44% if you prefer.
I think the Woodford paper is useful as it gives a range of expected outcomes and concludes that the measurable economics of Brexit, in the short- to medium-term are for there to be disadvantages, in particular for the financial services sector, but also for other sectors. It also points out that wrt cutting red tape and saving our contribution, there are mitigating factors which would make the benefit from each element far from clear (the UK likes a bit of red tape on the one hand, and likely decrease in GDP and immigration will compensate for our EU contribution saving on the other).
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
Well on the reduction of GDP due to lower immigration, overall GDP may be lower than than would otherwise be but per capita GDP would be higher. Immigration has around a 0.7x multiplier per person arriving, it's why Stuart Rose said that wages would go up without a high level of immigration.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
I'll say it again, there's no way Boris will make the final two of the next Tory leadership contest.
I watched Boris Leadership hope evaporate in his feeble 'I wish I was somewhere else' performance in the HoC after Cameron had ripped him a new one on the EU statement. Such lacklustre performance will have been noted by the PCP - so as well as the 'Not Osborne' candidate we can be confident of a 'Not Boris' Candidate......
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
"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.
For me, it most certainly is not about economics, but politics.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
I'll say it again, there's no way Boris will make the final two of the next Tory leadership contest.
I don't think so either. The only way I would vote for Boris if he made the final two was if he was up against Osborne. I don't think either of them will make it though. It will be May vs one of the 2010 intake (Liz Truss?)
'What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue'
I am quite happy to restrict this discussion to economics if you prefer, but you seem not to prefer that. I have posted as to why the 63% statistic you quoted is unhelpful and as to why your argument that we need to be part of a regional economic trade grouping is economically fallacious.
You have responded by caricaturing that view as 'cry freedom' and 'up yours'. Hence my regretful previous post.
63% vs 44% is a bit of fluff. Let's go with 44% if you prefer.
I think the Woodford paper is useful as it gives a range of expected outcomes and concludes that the measurable economics of Brexit, in the short- to medium-term are for there to be disadvantages, in particular for the financial services sector, but also for other sectors. It also points out that wrt cutting red tape and saving our contribution, there are mitigating factors which would make the benefit from each element far from clear (the UK likes a bit of red tape on the one hand, and likely decrease in GDP and immigration will compensate for our EU contribution saving on the other).
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
That wasn't my conclusion, I think it's pretty clear:
"It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies."
But there are things in there to cherry pick for both sides.
Comments
On the plus side, in the medium-long term the economic prospects outside are bright, and we get full independence back.
I calculate that's worth it. I appreciate others may not reach the same conclusion.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
- Trump-like dominance of coverage
- clear blue water from Cameron
- a leadership campaign by any other name
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Why do you hate it so much?
@robuk794: @IanDunt you think he refers to the Queen as part German?
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.
--------------
I think that is a rather misleading statistic. What it means is that there is a group of countries outside the EU which we export to and which the EU has trade agreements with. This is then 'added on' to actual trade with the EU.
But again here we have the same fallacious arguments surfacing. We don't need 'trade agreements' to trade with countries like Switzerland or Turkey. Nor is it welfare positive to potentially divert our trade towards such markets (by these agreements) and away from other global suppliers/customers.
There is no need to be in any regional grouping, from an economic perspective. These groupings are for strategic/political purposes.
At one time he was an every day stalwart contributor, and working for a major bookie certainly knew his betting onions.
The LLDC could have flattened it as Spurs wanted, or they could have left Orient to fill the front row. Or they could have left it empty.
Instead, they have it sold out at 54,000 next year with all the economic benefits that brings.
The LLDC and LBN get the first £4m of every year's naming rights on the deal in addition to the rent, they have a progressive percentage on any sell on by West Ham's owners within the next ten years , get performance bonuses linked to West Ham in the PL etc, and West Ham's use is limited to 25 days a year.
For 340 days a year, the stadium belongs to the community.
http://www.gorkanajobs.co.uk/job/61126/new-political-website-editor-reporter/?deviceType=Desktop&TrackID=121468&utm_source=adzuna&utm_medium=adzuna
I disagree with Trump on much, but I agree with him on this. If you don;t control immigration, if the citizens don;t have the final say on who comes in, you don;t have a country.
When one sees the UK being outvoted by countries such as landlocked Luxembourg on the decision over EU Ports Services Regulation (PSR), which will have a serious and detrimental effect on the industry in this country, anyone with a functioning brain realises that reform is nigh on impossible.
'ABP chief executive James Cooper went on record during London International Shipping Week to say that the PSR would “adversely affect the balance of risk and reward for investors in our industry”.
“While this might not have much impact on our mainland cousins whose ports are almost universally state funded, the proposed changes are especially important for UK ports that rely overwhelmingly on private funding to deliver new infrastructure and facilities on behalf of their customers.”
HMG gave up any attempt at fighting this last Autumn, Robert Goodwill being sent out to wave the white flag on our behalf.
http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/europe/uk-happy-to-live-with-eu-port-regulation
http://capx.co/president-obamas-brexit-intervention-insults-the-british-people/
The Trump phenomenon shows us this surely.
Why should we be taking lessons from him?
I suppose my point is (and I won't repeat it *too* many more times...) is that I do think it makes sense to have a local self-interest group (it is how societies evolve), and the one we have with the EU which governs trade and into which we have much input is, on balance, a positive for us.
As for the more egregious ECU stuff, which again I will say I don't feel imposes on my life too much, well Dave secured opt-out via the deal. Plus of course there remains the referendum option for treaty change (although I have no actual idea whether that option still exists, perhaps we gave it away).
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
On being lonely, to a certain extent we already are, in or out we are pretty friendless in the world and we seem to be going out of our way to irritate Australia, NZ and Canada with harsh immigration rules to get numbers down because we can't reduce EU immigration at all without swingeing cuts to our welfare state and qualifying rules introduced for everyone. For sure within the EU I can only name Sweden and Denmark as countries who are reliably in the same camp as us, sometimes the Germans tag along with our agenda but they are afraid of causing a "historic split" between the Franco-Deutsche axis too often so back down to French demands more often than they should.
A nation such as ours is never going to find itself being loved by anyone, it is a country with a violent and bloody history of conquest. The nations subjected to that resent Britain for putting them through it and the rest are jealous of the wealth and power that came with the Empire and were glad to see the managed decline of it and revelled in this nation's decline from global superpower to backwater from 1950-1970.
If we could successfully cleave Germany away from France then I would be in favour of staying and fighting it out, but the chances of that are remote, we are the mistress who Germany promises to leave his wife for but has no intention of doing so, and it will remain that way.
Is Nick Clegg "part Dutch" to Boris?
Is Sajid Javid "part Pakistani?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U9M4Yika9Yc
But my point remains when answering this question previously: why on earth would the leaders of the 27 EU nations agree a text with the UK that they intended to renege upon at the earliest opportunity? As I have also said many, many times, and it's a PoV I respect: if you really think the EU is such a mendacious institution, collectively, then Leave is definitely for you.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/everybody-counts-or-nobody-counts-sun-crime-editor-speaks-out-over-racism-around-coverage-crime
For some strange reason, those suggesting that Putin's views hold any influence, all seem to be Remainians.
On the one hand TTIP simplifies transatlantic trade into one very large, albeit very longwinded, negotiation and, by necessity, it involves lots of compromise. On the other hand a UK-US trade deal would be simpler (two governments only to deal with) and could be more easily considered in the British interest.
The U.K. will continue to be a very major economy when it Leaves and its biggest trading partner is the US. I think it's inconceivable there wouldn't be an appetite for a deal.
http://www.conservativehome.com/video/2016/04/watch-a-bbc-question-time-audience-member-claims-that-brexit-would-pay-off-the-national-debt-by-2030.html
'What are you talking about? I brought up the effing economic points as described by Neil Woodford and you said (after telling us that Woodford had it wrong anyway): "I don't care about the economic points it is a political issue'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am quite happy to restrict this discussion to economics if you prefer, but you seem not to prefer that. I have posted as to why the 63% statistic you quoted is unhelpful and as to why your argument that we need to be part of a regional economic trade grouping is economically fallacious.
You have responded by caricaturing that view as 'cry freedom' and 'up yours'. Hence my regretful previous post.
People who say that the US wouldn't want to have a trade relationship with the UK if we vote to leave should take note of this move though.
"As citizens of the United Kingdom take stock of their relationship with the EU, you should be proud that the EU has helped spread British values and practices – democracy, the rule of law, open markets – across the continent and to its periphery. The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it. A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership. The United States sees how your powerful voice in Europe ensures that Europe takes a strong stance in the world, and keeps the EU open, outward looking, and closely linked to its allies on the other side of the Atlantic. So the US and the world need your outsized influence to continue – including within Europe."
Fortunately, the low oil price is likely to force him from power before long.
They can all (including Le Pen) just politely eff off.
Thanks for your post earlier
Yes, i agree - the economic arguments are hugely overblown and this is primarily a political decision.
One when he is at home, where he has power. The other abroad where he thinks he has none.
The classic bully/coward complex.
What do those of us (Well me in 2 months) in the (gulp) 'middle aged' 35-55 category say ?
https://twitter.com/SkyData/status/723452845354180609
I think the Woodford paper is useful as it gives a range of expected outcomes and concludes that the measurable economics of Brexit, in the short- to medium-term are for there to be disadvantages, in particular for the financial services sector, but also for other sectors. It also points out that wrt cutting red tape and saving our contribution, there are mitigating factors which would make the benefit from each element far from clear (the UK likes a bit of red tape on the one hand, and likely decrease in GDP and immigration will compensate for our EU contribution saving on the other).
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
Once again we see how Remain supporters have to focus on individuals making the arguments, because they are not bright enough to understand the arguments themselves. It is the mentality of followers, not leaders. But I suppose that's why they wish to follow Brussels in the first place.
.
A deeply unhealthy obsession you seem to have.
Nice spread in the Sun https://t.co/D1dRx4MM6Z
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
"It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies."
But there are things in there to cherry pick for both sides.