Any electoral logic about how women will vote when faced with a choice of Trump vs Hillary is just as likely to be wrong.
Quite. How would pundits have expected Hillary to fare against a hypothetical geriatric white man with a record of writing very questionable material about women?
You should try reading some of that stuff in Bernie's Brooklyn accent.
Frankly, you seem not to understand much about group dynamics. Romania's position on anything is not that relevant. There is only room for a few big players at the table, and the pressure on the little guys to simply accept what is decided by the adults will be immense, regardless of the rules. That is how diplomacy works. From first hand experience.
Sure it will, up to a point. But you seem remarkably naive about how the EU works, and about the cards we have to play. For a start, there are over 20 'little guys'. Secondly, the big guys don't have identical interests with each other. Thirdly, the big guys largely agree with the little guys on the controversial issues of key interest to us; you are not going to get much sympathy in France, or even Germany, on our number one demand of protections for the City.
And what cards have we got to play in return? Nothing very much. Sure, we can shoot ourselves in the foot and in both hands by refusing to do a deal on access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
Frankly, you seem not to understand much about group dynamics. Romania's position on anything is not that relevant. There is only room for a few big players at the table, and the pressure on the little guys to simply accept what is decided by the adults will be immense, regardless of the rules. That is how diplomacy works. From first hand experience.
Sure it will, up to a point. But you seem remarkably naive about how the EU works, and about the cards we have to play. For a start, there are over 20 'little guys'. Secondly, the big guys don't have identical interests with each other. Thirdly, the big guys largely agree with the little guys on the controversial issues of key interest to us; you are not going to get much sympathy in France, or even Germany, on our number one demand of protections for the City.
And what cards have we got to play in return? Nothing very much. Sure, we can shoot ourselves in the foot and in both hands by refusing to do a deal on access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
If it's that complicated why the hell are we in it ?
You're first paragraph is one of the best Leave arguments I've seen.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Douglas Murray, in 'The Spectator' gets to the root of Labour's problem:
The modern Labour party claims to be an anti-racist movement, but because of demographic changes in the UK in certain areas it has to run on a covertly racist ticket. Try getting elected in Bradford as a Jew or a philo-Semite. And what exactly do people think the voters of Bradford West want? This is a constituency that voted for George Galloway ....a constituency which he, while the local MP, declared an ‘Israel-free zone’ ..... anti-Semitism among Britain’s Muslim communities is ‘routine and commonplace.’ It is, as Mehdi said, the ‘dirty little secret’ of Britain’s Muslims. ... Labour’s problem: the more Muslims you have, the more anti-Semitism you have.
If it's that complicated why the hell are we in it ?
You're first paragraph is one of the best Leave arguments I've seen.
Because it wouldn't be any simpler dealing with lots of countries separately. The complexity is unavoidable, although the existence of the EU mitigates it.
@derekrootboy: Labour MPs are clearly trying to purge the party of ALL @jeremycorbyn's voters immediately. Members back him. Deselect #McCarthyite MPs now.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
You cannot excuse Shah's behaviour just because she has made an apology. What she engaged with on Facebook cannot be undone by a sorry - no matter how sincere.
What she did was appalling. And people are now falling over themselves to try to defend her.
Sorry, but that will not wash.
She has to go from the party as much as Ken. And others who have espoused similar views.
Labour needs to purge itself of those who cannot conduct themselves with decency. Unless it is prepared to do that (and I suspect it isn't), it will remain the home for those who seem content to promote medieval thinking above the rights of others.
The Left has lost any claim to the moral high ground and it will take real leadership to get them out of this mess. Corbyn is at the heart of the it and is too closely aligned with disreputable groups, states and ideologies to be fit to lead them out of this crisis.
I think a genuine apology (and I think Shah's apology was genuine) should be accepted.
In the case of Livingstone, though, it's clear from numerous previous statements that he just gets some kind of kick out of winding up Jews.
That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
Almost every individual country in the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK.
You cannot excuse Shah's behaviour just because she has made an apology. What she engaged with on Facebook cannot be undone by a sorry - no matter how sincere.
What she did was appalling. And people are now falling over themselves to try to defend her.
Sorry, but that will not wash.
She has to go from the party as much as Ken. And others who have espoused similar views.
UKIP for all their faults do seem to quickly boot out people who cross the line.
Because it wouldn't be any simpler dealing with lots of countries separately. The complexity is unavoidable, although the existence of the EU mitigates it.
This is the hole that Toby Young fell into on DP
He claimed we have lots of trade with the USA, despite not having a "trade agreement".
The answer to which is there is an existing (yuuuuuuuuge) body of legislation and regulation governing trade between the USA and EU member states that we take advantage of.
Frankly, you seem not to understand much about group dynamics. Romania's position on anything is not that relevant. There is only room for a few big players at the table, and the pressure on the little guys to simply accept what is decided by the adults will be immense, regardless of the rules. That is how diplomacy works. From first hand experience.
Sure it will, up to a point. But you seem remarkably naive about how the EU works, and about the cards we have to play. For a start, there are over 20 'little guys'. Secondly, the big guys don't have identical interests with each other. Thirdly, the big guys largely agree with the little guys on the controversial issues of key interest to us; you are not going to get much sympathy in France, or even Germany, on our number one demand of protections for the City.
And what cards have we got to play in return? Nothing very much. Sure, we can shoot ourselves in the foot and in both hands by refusing to do a deal on access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
You've made my point on Romania. Effectively you're saying that their positions will count because the Big Boys agree with them.
Re the differing priorities of the Big Boys, that is another reason why Romania's positions where they differ will be ignored. It will be difficult enough for the Big Boys to get an acceptable deal with the UK. Once they have, they will resist pressures from the smaller guys to upset the apple cart. This happens time and time again in international forums and negotiations, be it the UN, its specialized agencies or the EU. I know, I have participated in EU policy coordination meetings, and then gone into Western Group coordination meetings and seen the US frustration when they come up against a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.
What else? How about Europe will want and need a deal as badly as the UK? How about the current account imbalances? How about most EZ economies being in a very precarious position and not wanting to knock them back into recession?
There are any number of issues, and new ones that can be created too.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA into an EFTA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months. After that whether an EFTA is still the best scenario can then be debated.
I'm not sure the Holyrood overspend was much of a story in Germany
Yes but how about this as a solution when the fire system didn't work:
"In March 2012 the group submitted its stopgap: Eight hundred low-paid workers armed with cell phones would take up positions throughout the terminal. If anyone smelled smoke or saw a fire, he would alert the airport fire station and direct passengers toward the exits."
That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
Almost every individual country in the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK.
They lose.
But that trade is not going to be affected whatever happens, according to the Leave side. Do keep up.
Katie Glueck of "Politico" reports that GOP and Dem insiders in swing states expect Trump to be "crushed" in November with significant down ticket implications :
“Trump's crossover appeal provides some challenges,” a Colorado Democrat said. “But for every working class white male Hillary loses she'll pick up three suburban Republican women; and neither group may reveal that to pollsters.”
Indeed so.
"Politico" is worthy of bookmarking. Their site over the years has provided some insightful analysis and I recommend it to PBers.
You cannot excuse Shah's behaviour just because she has made an apology. What she engaged with on Facebook cannot be undone by a sorry - no matter how sincere.
What she did was appalling. And people are now falling over themselves to try to defend her.
Sorry, but that will not wash.
She has to go from the party as much as Ken. And others who have espoused similar views.
Labour needs to purge itself of those who cannot conduct themselves with decency. Unless it is prepared to do that (and I suspect it isn't), it will remain the home for those who seem content to promote medieval thinking above the rights of others.
The Left has lost any claim to the moral high ground and it will take real leadership to get them out of this mess. Corbyn is at the heart of the it and is too closely aligned with disreputable groups, states and ideologies to be fit to lead them out of this crisis.
I think a genuine apology (and I think Shah's apology was genuine) should be accepted.
In the case of Livingstone, though, it's clear from numerous previous statements that he just gets some kind of kick out of winding up Jews.
I think Shah should be suspended for a period, and then only allowed back in if/when she demonstrates that she genuinely has changed her views since those Facebook posts, preferably by going out tackling anti-Semitism within the Muslim community.
Although I too am inclined to believe her apology is genuine, talk is cheap and she still has to prove she's genuine through actions.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
So Leave are not going to bother trying to restrict freedom of movement then? Good to know that two months before the referendum.
That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
Almost every individual country in the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK.
They lose.
But that trade is not going to be affected whatever happens, according to the Leave side. Do keep up.
Lewis Carroll would be proud of Leavers' ability to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
I think Shah should be suspended for a period, and then only allowed back in if/when she demonstrates that she genuinely has changed her views since those Facebook posts, preferably by going out tackling anti-Semitism within the Muslim community.
Although I too am inclined to believe her apology is genuine, talk is cheap and she still has to prove she's genuine through actions.
The head bloke (I don't remember the technical term, not the Rabbi) from her local Synagogue was of the view that she was not in any way hostile towards them in person
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
So Leave are not going to bother trying to restrict freedom of movement then? Good to know that two months before the referendum.
You keep on saying this, but the EEA does permit restrictions on the freedom of movement.
You cannot excuse Shah's behaviour just because she has made an apology. What she engaged with on Facebook cannot be undone by a sorry - no matter how sincere.
What she did was appalling. And people are now falling over themselves to try to defend her.
Sorry, but that will not wash.
She has to go from the party as much as Ken. And others who have espoused similar views.
Labour needs to purge itself of those who cannot conduct themselves with decency. Unless it is prepared to do that (and I suspect it isn't), it will remain the home for those who seem content to promote medieval thinking above the rights of others.
The Left has lost any claim to the moral high ground and it will take real leadership to get them out of this mess. Corbyn is at the heart of the it and is too closely aligned with disreputable groups, states and ideologies to be fit to lead them out of this crisis.
I think a genuine apology (and I think Shah's apology was genuine) should be accepted.
In the case of Livingstone, though, it's clear from numerous previous statements that he just gets some kind of kick out of winding up Jews.
Shah can never distance herself from the views she espoused. She can't be cleansed of them by a few words.
She put forward views that are packed with hate and bigotry. That cannot be undone or excused.
If Labour wants to move forward, it must be brave enough to kick anyone out. Including all the way up to the top.
It won't. Because it craves the votes that pandering to certain communities has brought to it.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
So Leave are not going to bother trying to restrict freedom of movement then? Good to know that two months before the referendum.
Not immediately no. And pretending LEAVE is a homogeneous entity is disgracefully misleading and you know it. There are 5+ leave groups all campaigning for their own vision/post-Brexit scenario with the only overarching common agreement being that they all think their vision is better than the status-quo. I'd rather not let nation-state parliamentary democracy be sacrificed on the EU technocratic altar.
I'm not sure the Holyrood overspend was much of a story in Germany
Yes but how about this as a solution when the fire system didn't work:
"In March 2012 the group submitted its stopgap: Eight hundred low-paid workers armed with cell phones would take up positions throughout the terminal. If anyone smelled smoke or saw a fire, he would alert the airport fire station and direct passengers toward the exits."
You've made my point on Romania. Effectively you're saying that their positions will count because the Big Boys agree with them.
Re the differing priorities of the Big Boys, that is another reason why Romania's positions where they differ will be ignored. It will be difficult enough for the Big Boys to get an acceptable deal with the UK. Once they have, they will resist pressures from the smaller guys to upset the apple cart. This happens time and time again in international forums and negotiations, be it the UN, its specialized agencies or the EU. I know, I have participated in EU policy coordination meetings, and then gone into Western Group coordination meetings and seen the US frustration when they come up against a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.
What else? How about Europe will want and need a deal as badly as the UK? How about the current account imbalances? How about most EZ economies being in a very precarious position and not wanting to knock them back into recession?
There are any number of issues, and new ones that can be created too.
Naive, moi? LOL
Well, you seem to have argued against yourself: "a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.". Quite how you get from that to concluding it would be easy for us to get whatever we want is a mystery.
As for your cards: Yes, of course our EU friends would want a deal as much as we would. And of course they'll be terrified of the precarious EZ economies being knocked back into recesssion (or worse). So should we, for that matter - it's one of the key short-term risks for us.
But those are the cards of self-harm. Sure, we can threaten to wreck their economies by wrecking ours. Not sure that's a great negotiating tactic, however.
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
You cannot excuse Shah's behaviour just because she has made an apology. What she engaged with on Facebook cannot be undone by a sorry - no matter how sincere.
What she did was appalling. And people are now falling over themselves to try to defend her.
Sorry, but that will not wash.
She has to go from the party as much as Ken. And others who have espoused similar views.
Labour needs to purge itself of those who cannot conduct themselves with decency. Unless it is prepared to do that (and I suspect it isn't), it will remain the home for those who seem content to promote medieval thinking above the rights of others.
The Left has lost any claim to the moral high ground and it will take real leadership to get them out of this mess. Corbyn is at the heart of the it and is too closely aligned with disreputable groups, states and ideologies to be fit to lead them out of this crisis.
I think a genuine apology (and I think Shah's apology was genuine) should be accepted.
In the case of Livingstone, though, it's clear from numerous previous statements that he just gets some kind of kick out of winding up Jews.
I think Shah should be suspended for a period, and then only allowed back in if/when she demonstrates that she genuinely has changed her views since those Facebook posts, preferably by going out tackling anti-Semitism within the Muslim community.
Although I too am inclined to believe her apology is genuine, talk is cheap and she still has to prove she's genuine through actions.
Her comments read to me like a joke made in poor taste. I too have made jokes in poor taste, although I certainly wouldn't be unwise enough to post them to social media if I wanted to pursue a full-time political career.
I can also remember one occasion when arguing politics vigorously with colleagues and I made a remark which I realised almost immediately was appalling. It happens. All you can do is apologise.
Frankly, you seem not to understand much about group dynamics. Romania's position on anything is not that relevant. There is only room for a few big players at the table, and the pressure on the little guys to simply accept what is decided by the adults will be immense, regardless of the rules. That is how diplomacy works. From first hand experience.
Sure it will, up to a point. But you seem remarkably naive about how the EU works, and about the cards we have to play. For a start, there are over 20 'little guys'. Secondly, the big guys don't have identical interests with each other. Thirdly, the big guys largely agree with the little guys on the controversial issues of key interest to us; you are not going to get much sympathy in France, or even Germany, on our number one demand of protections for the City.
And what cards have we got to play in return? Nothing very much. Sure, we can shoot ourselves in the foot and in both hands by refusing to do a deal on access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
You've made my point on Romania. Effectively you're saying that their positions will count because the Big Boys agree with them.
Re the differing priorities of the Big Boys, that is another reason why Romania's positions where they differ will be ignored. It will be difficult enough for the Big Boys to get an acceptable deal with the UK. Once they have, they will resist pressures from the smaller guys to upset the apple cart. This happens time and time again in international forums and negotiations, be it the UN, its specialized agencies or the EU. I know, I have participated in EU policy coordination meetings, and then gone into Western Group coordination meetings and seen the US frustration when they come up against a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.
What else? How about Europe will want and need a deal as badly as the UK? How about the current account imbalances? How about most EZ economies being in a very precarious position and not wanting to knock them back into recession?
There are any number of issues, and new ones that can be created too.
Douglas Murray, in 'The Spectator' gets to the root of Labour's problem:
The modern Labour party claims to be an anti-racist movement, but because of demographic changes in the UK in certain areas it has to run on a covertly racist ticket. Try getting elected in Bradford as a Jew or a philo-Semite. And what exactly do people think the voters of Bradford West want? This is a constituency that voted for George Galloway ....a constituency which he, while the local MP, declared an ‘Israel-free zone’ ..... anti-Semitism among Britain’s Muslim communities is ‘routine and commonplace.’ It is, as Mehdi said, the ‘dirty little secret’ of Britain’s Muslims. ... Labour’s problem: the more Muslims you have, the more anti-Semitism you have.
Labour has been playing the identity politics card for decades - now it has come back to bite them very hard on the backside. The irony is delicious, but there is a serious and deeply disturbing reality that needs examining. Naz Shah was part of a MUSLIM ONLY shortlist in the Bradford West constituency. That is implicitly stating that only a Muslim could represent other Muslims. That is the narrow road to apartheid - the very thing Labour are meant to be opposed to. South Africa springs to mind. Imagine, if you will, a Tory imposed all white, all male short list. Can you imagine the foaming outrage from the Left? See the difference here? Labour uses identity politics to further their own political cause (usually in Muslim dominated areas), and denounces everyone else as 'racist', or stupidly 'Islamophobe', one of the most ridiculous terms ever invented. How can anyone have an irrational fear of Islam? It's like saying you have an irrational fear of cancer. Andy Burnham said on QT that people had to be very careful about accusing others of racism - something that his party has been gleefully doing for over fifty years, and counting.
We owe Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone a debt of gratitude, because the myth that Labour are proudly anti-racist has been destroyed forever.
"Cruz allies and people close to the campaign describe a budding sense of gloom, with internal polls diving as Trump mounted even stronger than expected showings in his native northeast. In Indiana, which Cruz backers once believed they were favored to win after his strong defeat of Trump in Wisconsin, Cruz's numbers have fallen precipitously: Once leading, Cruz now trails in the state by eight to 10 points, according to a person who has seen the numbers, with Trump over the 40% mark. Cruz's campaign did not respond when asked about those figures."
Hence why they are desperate with Mike Pence today.
That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
Almost every individual country in the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK.
They lose.
But that trade is not going to be affected whatever happens, according to the Leave side. Do keep up.
Lewis Carroll would be proud of Leavers' ability to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Good to see you both arguing against the position of a fictional 'Leaver' so that you can cherry pick your arguments to demolish rather than debating the person posting.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
So Leave are not going to bother trying to restrict freedom of movement then? Good to know that two months before the referendum.
Not immediately no. And pretending LEAVE is a homogeneous entity is disgracefully misleading and you know it. There are 5+ leave groups all campaigning for their own vision/post-Brexit scenario with the only overarching common agreement being that they all think their vision is better than the status-quo. I'd rather not let nation-state parliamentary democracy be sacrificed on the EU technocratic altar.
Leave have actually put forward a proposal as its preferred offering. That entails a negotiation that will magically include full access to the EU market and give the UK meaningful restrictions over freedom of movement.
I should treat it with the respect that Leave supporters give it. Since that seems to be to tacitly file it in the bin as implausible and unworkable (and instead to put forward their own individual preferred solution), that's actually quite easy for me.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
Staying in a free trade area with the EU will not be completed for the UK. I concede staying in the single market through the EEA involves more compromises.
The EU at 45% is a declining share of our trade - despite the fact we're in economic union with it - and we must comply with 100% of its scope of regulation across 100% of our economy. Non-EU countries account for 55% of UK trade (and growing) and that's *without* any trade deals. That says a lot about the UK.
Think how much better we'd do if we could freely pursue our natural global vocation.
I think Shah should be suspended for a period, and then only allowed back in if/when she demonstrates that she genuinely has changed her views since those Facebook posts, preferably by going out tackling anti-Semitism within the Muslim community.
Although I too am inclined to believe her apology is genuine, talk is cheap and she still has to prove she's genuine through actions.
The head bloke (I don't remember the technical term, not the Rabbi) from her local Synagogue was of the view that she was not in any way hostile towards them in person
It depends what type of synagogue it was. Most would use "Rabbi" but Yemenite Jews would use "Mori" (teacher) If Sephardic then it could have been "Hakham" (wise man) Or the word might have been "Cantor" or "Hazzan". He's the prayer leader, not a Rabbi.
You've made my point on Romania. Effectively you're saying that their positions will count because the Big Boys agree with them.
Re the differing priorities of the Big Boys, that is another reason why Romania's positions where they differ will be ignored. It will be difficult enough for the Big Boys to get an acceptable deal with the UK. Once they have, they will resist pressures from the smaller guys to upset the apple cart. This happens time and time again in international forums and negotiations, be it the UN, its specialized agencies or the EU. I know, I have participated in EU policy coordination meetings, and then gone into Western Group coordination meetings and seen the US frustration when they come up against a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.
What else?
Naive, moi? LOL
Well, you seem to have argued against yourself: "a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.". Quite how you get from that to concluding it would be easy for us to get whatever we want is a mystery.
As for your cards: Yes, of course our EU friends would want a deal as much as we would. And of course they'll be terrified of the precarious EZ economies being knocked back into recesssion (or worse). So should we, for that matter - it's one of the key short-term risks for us.
But those are the cards of self-harm. Sure, we can threaten to wreck their economies by wrecking ours. Not sure that's a great negotiating tactic, however.
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
On the economics, it comes down to whether you rate completion and deepening of the single market in services inside the EU over the opportunities to pursue global trade deals, regulate ourselves, control our own migration policy, and have control over social and employment policy - at some short term economic cost, which is inevitable when exiting a longstanding economic union.
I think the latter is more important than the former, particularly when the politics is factored in. You think the reverse.
Fair enough. That's how we're deciding to vote in this referendum.
Leave have actually put forward a proposal as its preferred offering. That entails a negotiation that will magically include full access to the EU market and give the UK meaningful restrictions over freedom of movement.
I should treat it with the respect that Leave supporters give it. Since that seems to be to tacitly file it in the bin as implausible and unworkable (and instead to put forward their own individual preferred solution), that's actually quite easy for me.
To be fair, it's pretty much only on PB that anyone proposes the EEA option. I don't know why the Leavers here are so attached to the idea, given that it's a political non-starter, although a few of them still don't seem to have grasped the fact that EU Directive 2004/38/EC applies to the EEA countries.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
Staying in a free trade area with the EU will not be completed for the UK. I concede staying in the single market through the EEA involves more compromises.
The EU at 45% is a declining share of our trade - despite the fact we're in economic union with it - and we must comply with 100% of its scope of regulation across 100% of our economy. Non-EU countries account for 55% of UK trade (and growing) and that's *without* any trade deals. That says a lot about the UK.
Think how much better we'd do if we could freely pursue our natural global vocation.
Personally, I'm quite happy to decide the principle on 23rd June, and then work out the fine details in subsequent years.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
We are already in the EEA, step 1 should be to drop into that, which should be effortless as we already abide by its laws/regulations. From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
So Leave are not going to bother trying to restrict freedom of movement then? Good to know that two months before the referendum.
Not immediately no. And pretending LEAVE is a homogeneous entity is disgracefully misleading and you know it. There are 5+ leave groups all campaigning for their own vision/post-Brexit scenario with the only overarching common agreement being that they all think their vision is better than the status-quo. I'd rather not let nation-state parliamentary democracy be sacrificed on the EU technocratic altar.
Leave have actually put forward a proposal as its preferred offering. That entails a negotiation that will magically include full access to the EU market and give the UK meaningful restrictions over freedom of movement.
I should treat it with the respect that Leave supporters give it. Since that seems to be to tacitly file it in the bin as implausible and unworkable (and instead to put forward their own individual preferred solution), that's actually quite easy for me.
Just because the Electoral Commission has been politicised and thinks it can designate a LEAVE movement doesn't mean that is the reality. You are using a sweeping generalisation about the behaviour of some Leave supporters to disregard them all - despite that only being an attack on the messenger.
ONE leave organisation may have put forward the proposal you refer to, but there no doubt many many others that you willfully neglect to read or consider. You have created a singular LEAVE position strawman so big it's collapsing under its own weight.
On the economics, it comes down to whether you rate completion and deepening of the single market in services inside the EU over the opportunities to pursue global trade deals, regulate ourselves, control our own migration policy, and have control over social and employment policy - at some short term economic cost, which is inevitable when exiting a longstanding economic union.
I think the latter is more important than the former, particularly when the politics is factored in. You think the reverse.
Fair enough. That's how we're deciding to vote in this referendum.
Surely this is a LEAVE argument that free-trade deals can't be negotiated anymore in the EU because 28 member-states barely ever agree, especially with increasing political polarisation?
Your spin is ridiculous.
So you're not too concerned about that EU trading agreement with the UK?
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
Staying in a free trade area with the EU will not be completed for the UK. I concede staying in the single market through the EEA involves more compromises.
The EU at 45% is a declining share of our trade - despite the fact we're in economic union with it - and we must comply with 100% of its scope of regulation across 100% of our economy. Non-EU countries account for 55% of UK trade (and growing) and that's *without* any trade deals. That says a lot about the UK.
Think how much better we'd do if we could freely pursue our natural global vocation.
Personally, I'm quite happy to decide the principle on 23rd June, and then work out the fine details in subsequent years.
Quite so. One thing this referendum will flush out is just where the country stands, and what its priorities are.
That will be both interesting and useful to know, whatever the result.
Well, you seem to have argued against yourself: "a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.". Quite how you get from that to concluding it would be easy for us to get whatever we want is a mystery.
As for your cards: Yes, of course our EU friends would want a deal as much as we would. And of course they'll be terrified of the precarious EZ economies being knocked back into recesssion (or worse). So should we, for that matter - it's one of the key short-term risks for us.
But those are the cards of self-harm. Sure, we can threaten to wreck their economies by wrecking ours. Not sure that's a great negotiating tactic, however.
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
The hard-negotiated position in this case will be the one negotiated between the Big Boys and the UK, not excluding the UK. So, no, I am not arguing against myself.
Re the pain-free issues, you don't negotiate individual issues without the whole. Salami tactics will result in the UK faring very badly, so simply don't allow it. It is all or nothing in this type of negotiation.
As for self-harm, the key to winning at chess is understanding the concept of sacrifice. And in chicken, the winner is the one who throws his or her steering wheel out of the window.
ONE leave organisation may have put forward the proposal you refer to, but there no doubt many many others that you willfully neglect to read or consider. You have created a singular LEAVE position strawman so big it's collapsing under its own weight.
I'm interested in those other Leave campaigns who would be happy with free movement of people continuing unchanged. They seem to be keeping a remarkably low profile.
On the economics, it comes down to whether you rate completion and deepening of the single market in services inside the EU over the opportunities to pursue global trade deals, regulate ourselves, control our own migration policy, and have control over social and employment policy - at some short term economic cost, which is inevitable when exiting a longstanding economic union.
I think the latter is more important than the former, particularly when the politics is factored in. You think the reverse.
Fair enough. That's how we're deciding to vote in this referendum.
Yes, I think that's a fair characterisation.
Pleased to agree at last!
Still, a bit of a shame we're on different sides, but that's politics I guess :-)
Right, I've got a 5+ hour train journey ahead of me and an actual literal bag of popcorn; the two main parties intent on self-destruction (so much easier to fight the enemy within: you always know where to find them); only the frothers, loons and nutters standing between the UK and complete domination by an unelected European elite hellbent on a superstate (which is good, because the two main parties' leaderships agree on one thing: the only way for Britain to be safe from our elected representatives' lunatic policies is to vote for the Eurocracy to hold a permanent veto over them); and a pending debate about whether the anti-anti-Semites are more Islamophobic than Muslims who associate with other Muslims are anti-semitic; and all the while Ken's selflessly trying to dig a hole so deep that the Edstone (along with the Labour party) can be buried once and for all.
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
I am finding this idea that a pensions lawyer and a retired IT consultant know more about negotiating that a professional negotiator that has worked with the EU and the UN at the highest levels, both novel and curious. But then this forum was never short on "self confidence", to use the most charitable term available...okay, let's be honest, condescending and patronising nonsense.
LOL wow unable to stop smiling because something so black, wonderful & LIT just happened! And of course, the catalyst was a radical non-binary trans black activist – Wandile Dlamini – from the Rhodes Must Fall movement. Because trans activists have BEEN the ultimate blessers of this decolonial struggle!
On the economics, it comes down to whether you rate completion and deepening of the single market in services inside the EU over the opportunities to pursue global trade deals, regulate ourselves, control our own migration policy, and have control over social and employment policy - at some short term economic cost, which is inevitable when exiting a longstanding economic union.
I think the latter is more important than the former, particularly when the politics is factored in. You think the reverse.
Fair enough. That's how we're deciding to vote in this referendum.
Yes, I think that's a fair characterisation.
Pleased to agree at last!
Still, a bit of a shame we're on different sides, but that's politics I guess :-)
We agree on most things, Casino. Even on this issue, it's simply a question of giving different weights to the benefits and risks.
LOL wow unable to stop smiling because something so black, wonderful & LIT just happened! And of course, the catalyst was a radical non-binary trans black activist – Wandile Dlamini – from the Rhodes Must Fall movement. Because trans activists have BEEN the ultimate blessers of this decolonial struggle!
I don't want to interfere in Labour's self destruction but when Tom Watson and Andy Burnham announce that anti-semitism must be dealt with are they saying that Corbyn and McDonnell need overthrowing, as unless they are nothing will happen. Also how can a labour leader be banned from campaigning in Scotland, Wales and London by his own first Ministers and his mayoral candidate. The 'end is nigh' methinks
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
I am finding this idea that a pensions lawyer and a retired IT consultant know more about negotiating that a professional negotiator that has worked with the EU and the UN at the highest levels, both novel and curious. But then this forum was never short on "self confidence", to use the most charitable term available...okay, let's be honest, condescending and patronising nonsense.
Yes, I agree. In fact we could go one better, and get the opinion of someone who knows as much about this as anyone on this earth:
Mr. NorthWales, we need an urgent consensus to settle whether or not Chairman Corbyn's nicknames should include the Fuhrer. And also to let people know how to write umlauts on British keyboards, if so.
Comments
It's a Nazi ShahRaid.
And what cards have we got to play in return? Nothing very much. Sure, we can shoot ourselves in the foot and in both hands by refusing to do a deal on access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That would harm both sides, but the UK more than the other EU countries (and some of them hardly at all), so it doesn't seem a terribly strong card. What else?
http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/romania-will-veto-the-eu-canada-trade-deal/
Romania is threatening to torpedo it.
You're first paragraph is one of the best Leave arguments I've seen.
"How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-23/how-berlin-s-futuristic-airport-became-a-6-billion-embarrassment
Your spin is ridiculous.
The modern Labour party claims to be an anti-racist movement, but because of demographic changes in the UK in certain areas it has to run on a covertly racist ticket. Try getting elected in Bradford as a Jew or a philo-Semite. And what exactly do people think the voters of Bradford West want? This is a constituency that voted for George Galloway ....a constituency which he, while the local MP, declared an ‘Israel-free zone’ ..... anti-Semitism among Britain’s Muslim communities is ‘routine and commonplace.’ It is, as Mehdi said, the ‘dirty little secret’ of Britain’s Muslims. ... Labour’s problem: the more Muslims you have, the more anti-Semitism you have.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/labours-anti-semitism-problem-stems-from-its-grassroots/
Since the EU is by far Britain's largest trading partner and the Leave camp has been pooh-poohing any suggestion that it might more than 5 minutes and an argument over who is going to have the last biscuit, I can't help but admire the unblushing inconsistency of the Leavers.
In the case of Livingstone, though, it's clear from numerous previous statements that he just gets some kind of kick out of winding up Jews.
They lose.
He claimed we have lots of trade with the USA, despite not having a "trade agreement".
The answer to which is there is an existing (yuuuuuuuuge) body of legislation and regulation governing trade between the USA and EU member states that we take advantage of.
Re the differing priorities of the Big Boys, that is another reason why Romania's positions where they differ will be ignored. It will be difficult enough for the Big Boys to get an acceptable deal with the UK. Once they have, they will resist pressures from the smaller guys to upset the apple cart. This happens time and time again in international forums and negotiations, be it the UN, its specialized agencies or the EU. I know, I have participated in EU policy coordination meetings, and then gone into Western Group coordination meetings and seen the US frustration when they come up against a hard-negoatitated and hence inflexible EU position which is at odds with the US position.
What else? How about Europe will want and need a deal as badly as the UK? How about the current account imbalances? How about most EZ economies being in a very precarious position and not wanting to knock them back into recession?
There are any number of issues, and new ones that can be created too.
Naive, moi? LOL
From that point, we can begin negotiating a trade deal to drop out of EEA into an EFTA - our trade should continue under EEA terms until it is finished. No doubt some other EU memberstates will follow our lead and our negotiating position will strengthen within the space of a few months.
After that whether an EFTA is still the best scenario can then be debated.
"In March 2012 the group submitted its stopgap: Eight hundred low-paid workers armed with cell phones would take up positions throughout the terminal. If anyone smelled smoke or saw a fire, he would alert the airport fire station and direct passengers toward the exits."
"Politico" is worthy of bookmarking. Their site over the years has provided some insightful analysis and I recommend it to PBers.
Although I too am inclined to believe her apology is genuine, talk is cheap and she still has to prove she's genuine through actions.
@paulwaugh: Anneliese Midgley is to step down as Jeremy Corbyn's deputy chief of staff to become @unitetheunion 's new Political Director, I am told
She put forward views that are packed with hate and bigotry. That cannot be undone or excused.
If Labour wants to move forward, it must be brave enough to kick anyone out. Including all the way up to the top.
It won't. Because it craves the votes that pandering to certain communities has brought to it.
I'd rather not let nation-state parliamentary democracy be sacrificed on the EU technocratic altar.
The constant condescension is tiresome.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/mike-pence-to-endorse-ted-cruz-friday/index.html
Mike Pence the Indiana Governor to endorse Ted Cruz.
Trump 37 .. Cruz 35 .. Kasich 16
http://cloutpolitical.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/04/IN-GOP-PRIMARY-POLL-TOPLINE-REPORT-4-28-2016.pdf
As for your cards: Yes, of course our EU friends would want a deal as much as we would. And of course they'll be terrified of the precarious EZ economies being knocked back into recesssion (or worse). So should we, for that matter - it's one of the key short-term risks for us.
But those are the cards of self-harm. Sure, we can threaten to wreck their economies by wrecking ours. Not sure that's a great negotiating tactic, however.
In any case, you still don't quite seem to have grasped what I'm saying. As I have said zillions of times, it is in both our interests to agree pain-free, tariff-free access to the Single Market for manufactured goods. That bit is so obvious that it's largely uncontroversial. It's the other bits, where our interests diverge, that we have only one card to play: offering to retain free movement. Unfortunately, that's a card which we won't want to play, because if there's a Leave result it's exactly that which voters will have voted against. So how are we going to force them to give us more than access for manufactured goods?
I can also remember one occasion when arguing politics vigorously with colleagues and I made a remark which I realised almost immediately was appalling. It happens. All you can do is apologise.
We owe Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone a debt of gratitude, because the myth that Labour are proudly anti-racist has been destroyed forever.
I need a lie down.
"Cruz allies and people close to the campaign describe a budding sense of gloom, with internal polls diving as Trump mounted even stronger than expected showings in his native northeast. In Indiana, which Cruz backers once believed they were favored to win after his strong defeat of Trump in Wisconsin, Cruz's numbers have fallen precipitously: Once leading, Cruz now trails in the state by eight to 10 points, according to a person who has seen the numbers, with Trump over the 40% mark. Cruz's campaign did not respond when asked about those figures."
Hence why they are desperate with Mike Pence today.
I should treat it with the respect that Leave supporters give it. Since that seems to be to tacitly file it in the bin as implausible and unworkable (and instead to put forward their own individual preferred solution), that's actually quite easy for me.
There may well be a good betting opportunity to head in above Trump's current 1.2 price should Cruz take Indiana though.
LOL. Many of us in that position today. I have to take a break myself now.
The EU at 45% is a declining share of our trade - despite the fact we're in economic union with it - and we must comply with 100% of its scope of regulation across 100% of our economy. Non-EU countries account for 55% of UK trade (and growing) and that's *without* any trade deals. That says a lot about the UK.
Think how much better we'd do if we could freely pursue our natural global vocation.
When I can honestly say I'd rather read Don Brind's contributions...
Most would use "Rabbi" but Yemenite Jews would use "Mori" (teacher)
If Sephardic then it could have been "Hakham" (wise man)
Or the word might have been "Cantor" or "Hazzan". He's the prayer leader, not a Rabbi.
But as you ask, I see Cruz as far more extreme than THE Donald
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/726032464167206917
I think the latter is more important than the former, particularly when the politics is factored in. You think the reverse.
Fair enough. That's how we're deciding to vote in this referendum.
ONE leave organisation may have put forward the proposal you refer to, but there no doubt many many others that you willfully neglect to read or consider. You have created a singular LEAVE position strawman so big it's collapsing under its own weight.
Ukip poised to take seats in Welsh assembly for the first time: my report from Caerphilly https://t.co/lU3q5azOAU https://t.co/Ngd3BsWelI
That will be both interesting and useful to know, whatever the result.
Re the pain-free issues, you don't negotiate individual issues without the whole. Salami tactics will result in the UK faring very badly, so simply don't allow it. It is all or nothing in this type of negotiation.
As for self-harm, the key to winning at chess is understanding the concept of sacrifice. And in chicken, the winner is the one who throws his or her steering wheel out of the window.
Thanks for the chat. Off to do some work.
"Labour MP Marie Rimmer on trial over 'referendum assault'"
http://tinyurl.com/hju49lp
Still, a bit of a shame we're on different sides, but that's politics I guess :-)
I mean that sincerely.
the sub caption on that article cites 110 City leaders backing Brexit
PB was made for these moments.
Remain is the end of financial services
Brexit is the end of manufacturing.
Sweet Jesus.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/01/lord-mandelson-britain-bonkers-leave-european-union