Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
People who are berating the PM at the moment may as well do the same when he says water is wet, I don't understand the controversy, both nations mentioned are highly corrupt and Nigeria has a well earned reputation for fraud and scamming.
So the Prime Minister has an awkward couple of conversations ahead? I can't imagine either president can protest too profusely that he's wrong. This might even help them domestically implement anti-corruption policies, if they are so inclined.
Alternatively, we can just slip them a couple of quid to keep shtum.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I'm slightly confused as to why on the one (short-fingered) hand Cameron describing demagogic, race-baiting vulgarian Trump as divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong is a huge faux pas, while on the other his naming two whole countries as possibly the most corrupt in the world is simply telling it as it is. Perhaps one of the PB diplomatic experts can clarify.
Stronger in Europe sent me an email yesterday complaining that Leave had more money.
A bizarre barrel scraping message
Really? There was a Sky report of Remain donators >
"We're working hard on it - the total should be much closer to £20m by the time we finish," one insider said.
The £14m raised so far by BSiE may differ from the amount outlined next week by the Electoral Commission owing to the cut-off points for the regulator's disclosure of donations.
However, a source close to the 'Remain' campaign said it would go beyond regulatory requirements by naming all donors above the £7500 threshold - not only those who committed money between February and April. That list will include dozens of individuals, as well as the investment banks Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley - a quartet which has collectively handed over approximately £1.5m.
Virgin Media's owner Liberty Global, which disclosed in a regulatory filing in the US last week that it was seeking shareholders' permission to donate up to £500,000, will not be named on next week's list.
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Before the PCCs came along, did you have any idea who was on your Police Authority? Did you have any opportunity to question them or vote for them? Politicisation of the police? 'Twas always there; now you can at least see it, put a name on it and vote for it or against it.
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Irrelevant. It was put to the voters and they decided. Anyone can put themselves up for PCCs AFAIK.
But not everybody has a wealthy party machine behind them.
True. There was a nice leaflet explaining everyone's views which ISTR cost the candidates £9,000 each. Average spend in 2012 was £11,200. The salary is £100,000. I don't think those are crazy figures for non-aligned candidates to match.
£11k to apply for a job - who in their right mind does that?
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
Well Patrick Minford wants to abolish unilaterally the UK's tariffs under WTO trade terms, so that would presumably take five minutes.
I'm slightly confused as to why on the one hand Cameron describing demagogic, race-baiting vulgarian Trump as divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong is a huge faux pas, while his naming two whole countries as possibly the most corrupt in the world is simply telling it as it is. Perhaps one of the PB diplomatic experts can clarify.
Irregular verbs.
I am stating the facts, you smear, he is a worthy successor to Alastair Campbell.
Stronger in Europe sent me an email yesterday complaining that Leave had more money.
A bizarre barrel scraping message
Really? There was a Sky report of Remain donators >
"We're working hard on it - the total should be much closer to £20m by the time we finish," one insider said.
The £14m raised so far by BSiE may differ from the amount outlined next week by the Electoral Commission owing to the cut-off points for the regulator's disclosure of donations.
However, a source close to the 'Remain' campaign said it would go beyond regulatory requirements by naming all donors above the £7500 threshold - not only those who committed money between February and April. That list will include dozens of individuals, as well as the investment banks Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley - a quartet which has collectively handed over approximately £1.5m.
Virgin Media's owner Liberty Global, which disclosed in a regulatory filing in the US last week that it was seeking shareholders' permission to donate up to £500,000, will not be named on next week's list.
The other side have not only got Boris Johnson and Michael Gove’s Leave Campaign, they’ve also got all UKIP's resources at their disposal – an extra £4 million we don’t have.
PLUS, Nigel Farage has a cunning plan. UKIP donors have set up or funded over 20 ‘allied’ organisations who can each spend £700,000 in this campaign, giving them up to another £14 million – twice as much as we’re allowed to spend.
David - UKIP donors want to buy this referendum, and we have to stop them. Donate right now and a group of supporters will match your contribution – doubling the impact your money has
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Before the PCCs came along, did you have any idea who was on your Police Authority? Did you have any opportunity to question them or vote for them? Politicisation of the police? 'Twas always there; now you can at least see it, put a name on it and vote for it or against it.
Exactly. It was almost entirely invisible - until I worked for the police, I'd no idea what a precept was or that a Police Authority existed, who was on it or what it did. A great deal of the hostility to PCCs is simply that people didn't know anything was there before.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Irrelevant. It was put to the voters and they decided. Anyone can put themselves up for PCCs AFAIK.
But not everybody has a wealthy party machine behind them.
True. There was a nice leaflet explaining everyone's views which ISTR cost the candidates £9,000 each. Average spend in 2012 was £11,200. The salary is £100,000. I don't think those are crazy figures for non-aligned candidates to match.
£11k to apply for a job - who in their right mind does that?
Sadly the brand recognition of the favourite local political party is worth millions. Especially when a voter arrives at the polling booth and doesn't recognize the names as all the leaflets went in the bin unread...
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Irrelevant. It was put to the voters and they decided. Anyone can put themselves up for PCCs AFAIK.
But not everybody has a wealthy party machine behind them.
True. There was a nice leaflet explaining everyone's views which ISTR cost the candidates £9,000 each. Average spend in 2012 was £11,200. The salary is £100,000. I don't think those are crazy figures for non-aligned candidates to match.
£11k to apply for a job - who in their right mind does that?
I agree it is a lot vs going for a job as a barista. PCC salary is £100,000 and I'm going to have to believe that the majority of people who want to become one are relatively established hence have some savings. Plus £11,200 was the average. One spent £98,000 so I'm sure you could do it for a lot less. But I take your point.
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
voters, eh - what can you do with them?
Oh yes I respect the will of the people, I don't agree with political parties running the police and parachuting their people into office.
Do you?
Before the PCCs came along, did you have any idea who was on your Police Authority? Did you have any opportunity to question them or vote for them? Politicisation of the police? 'Twas always there; now you can at least see it, put a name on it and vote for it or against it.
I suspect B63, like a lot of other people, didn't want to think about the subject. Londoners of course have always known that the Met is answerable to the Home Secretary.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
Given that Kasich and Cruz are no longer campaigning for the nomination, I'm not sure we should read too much into the West Virginia Republican primary. ----------------------------------------------------- It's not only the percentages that count. The number of votes for Trump count even more: 151,000 in WV and 119,500 from Nebraska, where the ever sly Cruz hoped for a re-launch of his presidential bid.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
Poor old Boris - more trusted than Cameron on the EUref.
btw the bloke who won the Kent PCC was Matthew Scott
Members of the Kent Conservatives convened for a meeting today to select their PCC candidate for 2016's Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Matthew Scott on his selection as Conservative Candidate.
Matthew, from Swanley, attended Beth’s Grammar School before graduating in Public Policy, Government and Management at the University of Birmingham. He works as the office manager for government whip David Evenett.
The politicisation of the police under our very noses.
I've known members of two police authorities. One was dominated by political parties - representatives appointed by the council. The other was the Corporation, so not political in the party sense.
PCCs are not about politicising the police. It would be quite wrong for the PCC to involve himself in specific cases. And it would be quite wrong for the police force to bend to theri perception of his will in specific cases. Of course there is always a risk that this will happen but there should be checks and balances.
What is right is that police priorities, resources and budgets should be responsible to someone democratically accountable. This is what the PCCs provide: previously the budgets and priorities were set in private by appointed delegates (they were often council members, but their police oversight role was rarely highlighted/considered by voters).
Democratic accountability and transparency are the best way to make the police responsive to the concerns of the public. It's the same reason why I prefer Westminster - no matter how crap our politicians are - to the EU Parliament: I know that it is democratically accountable to members of my demos.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
Well yes but we're not allowed to question Boris' intellect. Or IDS's. Or....
That said, he was definitely entertaining. A perfect dinner party guest. The thought of him being anywhere near the reins of proper power, however, is terrifying.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
@chrisshipitv: Tooting by election to replace @SadiqKhan as MP will be on 16 June, the electoral officer decides. One week *before* EU referendum
And one week *after* the Blaydon races.
With all the focus on the referendum and the associated Tory in-fighting, it ought to be an easy hold for Labour.
I only knew the first two verses and the chorus
Ah me lads, ye shud only seen us gannin', We pass'd the foaks upon the road just as they wor stannin'; Thor wes lots o' lads an' lasses there, all wi' smiling faces, Gawn alang the Scotswood Road, to see the Blaydon Races.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
It's a truism that people vote differently in different types of elections. UKIP under performed their national poll ratings in the local council elections, matched them in the PCC elections, and would likely exceed them if EU Parliamentary elections had been held on Thursday.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
Poor old Boris - more trusted than Cameron on the EUref.
Yep - more liked as well, no doubt. I know who I'd rather have a drink with. But I would not want Boris anywhere near a negotiating table or a position of power. The idea that we should just walk away from the Single Market is ridiculous and will almost certainly cost us jobs and inward investment.
There's been a long history of David Cameron's opponents and the media attaching him for speaking the truth
Cf Kippers are "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".
The only Fruitcake in sight is Cameron himself. The Tory leader is literally floundering all over the place; the Tory party is split from top to bottom and TSE will need a new arse to brown nose, when Cameron goes.
People who are berating the PM at the moment may as well do the same when he says water is wet, I don't understand the controversy, both nations mentioned are highly corrupt and Nigeria has a well earned reputation for fraud and scamming.
It's doing it using the Queen I object too.
I have no doubt that the comments by the PM and the Queen yesterday were intended to be made public. I just don't know for what purpose.
I disagree, I view it as nothing more than a casual remark that has been blown out of all proportion by Cameron bashers. I'm a Cameron basher but there's nothing to see here.
Prime Ministers don't make casual comments to the Queen. It may not have been intended for public consumption, but it was sending her a message on how HMG views those countries.
A bit like Al Capone and his tax return, I was actually surprised, having had no success hitherto when questioning him about the single market, ECJ, immigration, etc, when John Humphries managed to poleaxe BoJo on the "two columns" question.
People who are berating the PM at the moment may as well do the same when he says water is wet, I don't understand the controversy, both nations mentioned are highly corrupt and Nigeria has a well earned reputation for fraud and scamming.
It's doing it using the Queen I object too.
I have no doubt that the comments by the PM and the Queen yesterday were intended to be made public. I just don't know for what purpose.
I disagree, I view it as nothing more than a casual remark that has been blown out of all proportion by Cameron bashers. I'm a Cameron basher but there's nothing to see here.
Prime Ministers don't make casual comments to the Queen. It may not have been intended for public consumption, but it was sending her a message on how HMG views those countries.
I'm sure the Queen can judge for herself the levels of corruption in those two nations. It's not some massive secret.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
There's been a long history of David Cameron's opponents and the media attaching him for speaking the truth
Cf Kippers are "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".
The only Fruitcake in sight is Cameron himself. The Tory leader is literally floundering all over the place; the Tory party is split from top to bottom and TSE will need a new arse to brown nose, when Cameron goes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my recall is that your UKIP came out with a total of MPs far fewer than the 50+ you were predicting here before GE20015
I'm slightly confused as to why on the one (short-fingered) hand Cameron describing demagogic, race-baiting vulgarian Trump as divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong is a huge faux pas, while on the other his naming two whole countries as possibly the most corrupt in the world is simply telling it as it is. Perhaps one of the PB diplomatic experts can clarify.
Two reasons:
(i) Attacking Trump is seeking to influence another country's internal affairs. Impolite at best (ii) Realpolitik. Friendship with the US is more important to us than friendship with Afghanistan. Nigeria it would be good to keep close to.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
It's a truism that people vote differently in different types of elections. UKIP under performed their national poll ratings in the local council elections, matched them in the PCC elections, and would likely exceed them if EU Parliamentary elections had been held on Thursday.
That may or may not be true but you do not address the simple fact that Online polls tell us that UKIP support is X % . telephone polls ( even from the same polling company ) tell us it is X-4% and the local elections show that the latter is nearer to the actuality .
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
Yes but he has only made explicit what was implicit in VL's literature, and every VL interview to date, namely they want to take control of immigration. Which as we know, can only happen at the expense of single market access.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
Yes but he has only made explicit what was implicit in VL's literature, and every VL interview to date, namely they want to take control of immigration. Which as we know, can only happen at the expense of single market access.
Yep, this is true. This is all about immigration. And that's why I have always thought that Leave would win.
There's been a long history of David Cameron's opponents and the media attaching him for speaking the truth
Cf Kippers are "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".
The only Fruitcake in sight is Cameron himself. The Tory leader is literally floundering all over the place; the Tory party is split from top to bottom and TSE will need a new arse to brown nose, when Cameron goes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my recall is that your UKIP came out with a total of MPs far fewer than the 50+ you were predicting here before GE20015
All true Mike, and I'm sure added to the general merriment on PB. However, as I have stated a few times already on PB, I am no longer a member of UKIP, and I may give them a nod for old times sake, I no longer support them.
Still, the above doesn't alter the fact that the Tories are split and in a mess. Oh I do support Leave though.
'As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.'
Are you claiming tariffs (costs) are a one-way street ?
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
Yes but he has only made explicit what was implicit in VL's literature, and every VL interview to date, namely they want to take control of immigration. Which as we know, can only happen at the expense of single market access.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
It's a truism that people vote differently in different types of elections. UKIP under performed their national poll ratings in the local council elections, matched them in the PCC elections, and would likely exceed them if EU Parliamentary elections had been held on Thursday.
That may or may not be true but you do not address the simple fact that Online polls tell us that UKIP support is X % . telephone polls ( even from the same polling company ) tell us it is X-4% and the local elections show that the latter is nearer to the actuality .
Let's look at other parties. The Lib Dems are polling 8% or so. They won 14% in the local elections. But, I wouldn't conclude from that that the real level of Lib Dem support is 14%. I would conclude that the Lib Dems are able to persuade people to vote for them at local council level who vote for other parties at Parliamentary level.
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Clearly, Cameron and Osborne now cannot remain in place if Leave wins. Given what they have said about the importance of the Single Market, they could not be trusted to negotiate the UK's way out of it.
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
'As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.'
Are you claiming tariffs (costs) are a one-way street ?
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
Yes but he has only made explicit what was implicit in VL's literature, and every VL interview to date, namely they want to take control of immigration. Which as we know, can only happen at the expense of single market access.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
It's a truism that people vote differently in different types of elections. UKIP under performed their national poll ratings in the local council elections, matched them in the PCC elections, and would likely exceed them if EU Parliamentary elections had been held on Thursday.
That may or may not be true but you do not address the simple fact that Online polls tell us that UKIP support is X % . telephone polls ( even from the same polling company ) tell us it is X-4% and the local elections show that the latter is nearer to the actuality .
Let's look at other parties. The Lib Dems are polling 8% or so. They won 14% in the local elections. But, I wouldn't conclude from that that the real level of Lib Dem support is 14%. I would conclude that the Lib Dems are able to persuade people to vote for them at local council level who vote for other parties at Parliamentary level.
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Clearly, Cameron and Osborne now cannot remain in place if Leave wins. Given what they have said about the importance of the Single Market, they could not be trusted to negotiate the UK's way out of it.
It's becoming ever more certain that Cameron will resign if Leave wins. He's saying that Leave would be catastrophic on multiple levels. How can he possibly stay at the helm to implement it?
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
It may well be that Mossad Agents are over-represented, especially in the Online Polls
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
I think he does understand, that's why he ignored the question. Remember Boris Johnson was ambivalent about the EU previously, but now has to go full negative. It's quite possible he would have put the single market into the plus side of the EU. It's the opposite of David Cameron who was euro sceptic before and now a committed europhile. It's the polarising effect of a black and white, winner take all, zero sum referendum.
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there.But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
It also means that there would be nothing to negotiate about after invoking Article 50 doesn't it? If the UK doesn't want single market access then it doesn't want anything from the EU - or am I missing something?
We would still need to negotiate the exit timetable, but clearly if we have decided that the Single Market is not important the negotiations will take much less time. Immigration will still ne a major sticking point, though. It's not a one way street, remember. There are plenty of Brits living in the other EU member states - or who have plans to do so in the future.
My point really was that it would be attractive to Boris and Gove if they had relatively little need for the EU's good will during the rest of this Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Of course. They have now nailed their colours very firmly to the Leave mast. I am surprised at Gove's desire to leave the Single Market. Boris does not surprise me - he was, is and always will be an opportunist. Clearly, the stakes in this referendum are now much, much higher. Waving goodbye to the Single Market is a very big deal, with significant implications.
Yes but he has only made explicit what was implicit in VL's literature, and every VL interview to date, namely they want to take control of immigration. Which as we know, can only happen at the expense of single market access.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Having access to is not the same as being part of. Right now we are a fully integrated part of a market of 500 million people. Putting aside tariffs, that makes doing business within that market quicker and more efficient. Withdrawing from that market - as Leave intends to do - will have negative consequences.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
I wonder why Labour has a problem in Lincolnshire?
WWC complaint: "All these white Christians from Eastern Europe are taking our jobs on the land." Labour: "Racist. They are good for the country, and you're just fat and lazy."
Whatever the truth of the matter, it's the response that is so telling. Did Keir Hardie die in vain?
I'm slightly confused as to why on the one (short-fingered) hand Cameron describing demagogic, race-baiting vulgarian Trump as divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong is a huge faux pas, while on the other his naming two whole countries as possibly the most corrupt in the world is simply telling it as it is. Perhaps one of the PB diplomatic experts can clarify.
Two reasons:
(i) Attacking Trump is seeking to influence another country's internal affairs. Impolite at best (ii) Realpolitik. Friendship with the US is more important to us than friendship with Afghanistan. Nigeria it would be good to keep close to.
I think there is a pennies and pounds argument here, except with diplomatic goodwill rather than hard cash. Nevertheless the message from Dave and George seems to be similiar on both at present.
"Britain generated no electricity from coal on Tuesday morning for what is believed to be the first time since the 19th century, in a major milestone in the decline of the polluting power source. National Grid confirmed that none of Britain's coal stations were running between midnight and 4am. - The Telegraph"
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
It's a truism that people vote differently in different types of elections. UKIP under performed their national poll ratings in the local council elections, matched them in the PCC elections, and would likely exceed them if EU Parliamentary elections had been held on Thursday.
That may or may not be true but you do not address the simple fact that Online polls tell us that UKIP support is X % . telephone polls ( even from the same polling company ) tell us it is X-4% and the local elections show that the latter is nearer to the actuality .
Let's look at other parties. The Lib Dems are polling 8% or so. They won 14% in the local elections. But, I wouldn't conclude from that that the real level of Lib Dem support is 14%. I would conclude that the Lib Dems are able to persuade people to vote for them at local council level who vote for other parties at Parliamentary level.
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Sean , you are ( I suspect deliberately ) confusing the situation by bringing other parties into the discussions . There is only one party that has a major discrepancy in its ratings between online pollsters and telephone pollsters even when the pollster is the same company asking the same questions . That party is UKIP . Online pollsters say UKIP support is up on GE 2015 , telephone pollsters say it is down . Other evidence including anecdotal from people such as MikeK on here show it is in factbdown .
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
Very misleading from Mr Hannan there. A single market means no internal barriers to business. It's very efficient and saves a lot of time and money. I find it extraordinary that this is now what the Leave side is advocating. They are doing it, of course, because it is the only way to make the claims about controlling immigration they are making. But they should not pretend that it will not come at a cost.
As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.
I am not sure Boris actually understands. If you look at his political career it has not been hugely stunning. He beat Ken a couple of times, but then outsourced the job to a coterie of highly paid deputy mayors and advisers. In Parliament he has been singularly unimpressive. It's increasingly apparent that far from being terrifyingly intelligent, Boris is very good at Latin and Greek and writing snappy articles.
I think he does understand, that's why he ignored the question. Remember Boris Johnson was ambivalent about the EU previously, but now has to go full negative. It's quite possible he would have put the single market into the plus side of the EU. It's the opposite of David Cameron who was euro sceptic before and now a committed europhile. It's the polarising effect of a black and white, winner take all, zero sum referendum.
Humphries should have asked the following question:
If you agonised about your choice for so long, which implies there were arguments on both sides and the decision was difficult to make, how come you are now saying how dreadful the EU is and how we must at all costs leave?
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
Maybe the Americans and Koreans are offering goods and services Europeans want to buy. What I am still struggling to understand is how making it harder to do business in Europe is going to help UK companies.
are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU.
The last time this was discussed on here the position of the leavers seemed to be that manufacturers would indeed make "Union Jack" products that were illegal anywhere outside the UK...
Let's look at other parties. The Lib Dems are polling 8% or so. They won 14% in the local elections. But, I wouldn't conclude from that that the real level of Lib Dem support is 14%. I would conclude that the Lib Dems are able to persuade people to vote for them at local council level who vote for other parties at Parliamentary level.
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Indeed and given the anti-politics mood and given they had more seats to defend and therefore to lose and given they control a lot of Councils, I think the Conservatives did suffer more from a bit of early protest vote and some abstentions of their supporters than perhaps many on here and elsewhere considered likely.
Elmbridge was a fine example of this - a naturally Conservative area (Hammond is one of its MPs) but in the locals the various Residents groups are able to substantially erode this Conservative vote and I'm afraid John O was part of this and he may draw only slight comfort from the knowledge many of those who voted against him locally will vote Conservative nationally.
On topic, taking polls in a plural situation and extrapolating them to a binary situation may not be wise. If you didn't want to vote Conservative last Thursday, you had a number of options including not voting. In the EU Referendum, if you don't want to vote REMAIN, you have only two - LEAVE or not vote.
It's also lazy analysis to assume the most motivated LEAVE supporters are UKIP supporters and therefore over-stating UKIP means overstating LEAVE. From what I see, LEAVE supporters come in all political colours and none - I may well vote LEAVE but I'm no supporter of UKIP.
It may be this referendum unlike other elections defies compartmentalisation of the electorate and using analytical models to determine GE outcomes may simply not work.
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
Yep. Though SLab certainly bear the most of the blame for their current state, I thought the piece was a little parsimonious on allocating at least some responsibility elsewhere. 'London' Labour were entirely happy to facilitate Scottish talent (such as it was) making their careers at Westminster, and they were fully on board with Project Fear, in fact leading it in certain aspects.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
It may well be that Mossad Agents are over-represented, especially in the Online Polls
Like @HurstLlama, I'm dying to know who they are - @AlastairMeek said he knew they've infiltrated PB nerdsters.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
Maybe the Americans and Koreans are offering goods and services Europeans want to buy. What I am still struggling to understand is how making it harder to do business in Europe is going to help UK companies.
Do you think the UK should adopt the euro to facilitate business with the Continent ?
Let's look at other parties. The Lib Dems are polling 8% or so. They won 14% in the local elections. But, I wouldn't conclude from that that the real level of Lib Dem support is 14%. I would conclude that the Lib Dems are able to persuade people to vote for them at local council level who vote for other parties at Parliamentary level.
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Indeed and given the anti-politics mood and given they had more seats to defend and therefore to lose and given they control a lot of Councils, I think the Conservatives did suffer more from a bit of early protest vote and some abstentions of their supporters than perhaps many on here and elsewhere considered likely.
Elmbridge was a fine example of this - a naturally Conservative area (Hammond is one of its MPs) but in the locals the various Residents groups are able to substantially erode this Conservative vote and I'm afraid John O was part of this and he may draw only slight comfort from the knowledge many of those who voted against him locally will vote Conservative nationally.
On topic, taking polls in a plural situation and extrapolating them to a binary situation may not be wise. If you didn't want to vote Conservative last Thursday, you had a number of options including not voting. In the EU Referendum, if you don't want to vote REMAIN, you have only two - LEAVE or not vote.
It's also lazy analysis to assume the most motivated LEAVE supporters are UKIP supporters and therefore over-stating UKIP means overstating LEAVE. From what I see, LEAVE supporters come in all political colours and none - I may well vote LEAVE but I'm no supporter of UKIP.
It may be this referendum unlike other elections defies compartmentalisation of the electorate and using analytical models to determine GE outcomes may simply not work.
Good post. Out of curiosity - are you for Leave/Remain/DK?
People who are berating the PM at the moment may as well do the same when he says water is wet, I don't understand the controversy, both nations mentioned are highly corrupt and Nigeria has a well earned reputation for fraud and scamming.
It's doing it using the Queen I object too.
I have no doubt that the comments by the PM and the Queen yesterday were intended to be made public. I just don't know for what purpose.
Can someone look up the threads when the Sun announced that the Queen supported Brexit? Just for comparison purposes, like.
Oh yes. Forgot about that. Naughty old Gove. The piety flying around last night was less apparent on that occasion.
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
Maybe the Americans and Koreans are offering goods and services Europeans want to buy. What I am still struggling to understand is how making it harder to do business in Europe is going to help UK companies.
Do you think the UK should adopt the euro to facilitate business with the Continent ?
No, I think that would be a bad idea. Right now we have the best of both worlds.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU.
The last time this was discussed on here the position of the leavers seemed to be that manufacturers would indeed make "Union Jack" products that were illegal anywhere outside the UK...
The rumour doing the rounds in Whitehall is that the bombshell report on active National Insurance numbers will be slipped out early tomorrow. Chris Grayling has been asked to make time for four or five statements, so it looks like Downing Street is planning a dumping day to bury as much bad news as possible.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
To be fair and I am sure you don't mean it but that is frankly disingenuous and risks many UK jobs.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
Maybe the Americans and Koreans are offering goods and services Europeans want to buy. What I am still struggling to understand is how making it harder to do business in Europe is going to help UK companies.
Perhaps they are. But apparently if you do that, non-membership of the single market is no real bar to export success, is it?
The benefits of single market membership are grossly overstated.
And the costs understated -
1. The protectionist cost, involving the UK not sourcing imports from the cheapest suppliers due to EU protection.
2. The regulatory cost, which remember falls on all UK producers, not just those exporting to the EU.
Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. And of course current firms which export to the EU are already compliant from a regulatory point of view - so there is no additional barrier related to regulatory costs that they would have to meet.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's really very simple. If we choose, outside the EU, to not implement these regulations then the situation is as follows:
Those firms wishing to export kettles to the EU will need to meet these requirements. Those not wishing to, need not.
This is exactly what happens already with firms exporting around the world into different markets where product standards may vary.
are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU.
The last time this was discussed on here the position of the leavers seemed to be that manufacturers would indeed make "Union Jack" products that were illegal anywhere outside the UK...
Anywhere outside the UK? You think the EU is the whole globe now?
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations while those that do export can choose to adopt international standards as exporters to elsewhere already do.
However product regulations are only a slight fraction of what the EU does.
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
The PM and Chancellor will have to play a central role in negotiating our exit from the EU. It is not a side issue, it is hugely important and affects all aspects of the government - even the future of the UK itself. You can't just leave it to Chris Grayling or some other Leaver. There is no way that Cameron and Osborne can carry on if Leave wins. Likewise, it's now hard to see how Leavers can continue in senior government positions should their side lose.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
'The number of EU nationals given NI numbers has always been significantly higher than official migration stats. 257,000 EU nationals came to Britain in the year to September 2015, yet 630,000 got NI numbers, including 170,000 Romanians. '
As most people suspected ,the official figures are just worthless.
How many more people before public services completely collapse ?
The rumour doing the rounds in Whitehall is that the bombshell report on active National Insurance numbers will be slipped out early tomorrow. Chris Grayling has been asked to make time for four or five statements, so it looks like Downing Street is planning a dumping day to bury as much bad news as possible.
The number of EU nationals given NI numbers has always been significantly higher than official migration stats. 257,000 EU nationals came to Britain in the year to September 2015, yet 630,000 got NI numbers, including 170,000 Romanians. The official figures are a con – the actual level of immigration is over double what the government claims. This is the opening for the Leave campaign to turn the debate onto immigration…
Message for mods/TSE/OGH/Robert - would it be possible to stop posting embedded google tables (perhaps a jpeg of the top and then a link to the full table would work well?).
Not only does it cover the comments section for that post on the iPhone Chrome app, but it wrecks Chrome browsing on a Mac until that post is off the first page (the cursor defaults to the first cell of the table after the page has fully loaded).
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's really very simple. If we choose, outside the EU, to not implement these regulations then the situation is as follows:
Those firms wishing to export kettles to the EU will need to meet these requirements. Those not wishing to, need not.
This is exactly what happens already with firms exporting around the world into different markets where product standards may vary.
It all seems so unnecessary to be honest. With a market of 500 million in Europe including the UK why would anyone not manufacture to the same standards and compete worldwide with European manufacturers
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
The PM and Chancellor will have to play a central role in negotiating our exit from the EU. It is not a side issue, it is hugely important and affects all aspects of the government - even the future of the UK itself. You can't just leave it to Chris Grayling or some other Leaver. There is no way that Cameron and Osborne can carry on if Leave wins. Likewise, it's now hard to see how Leavers can continue in senior government positions should their side lose.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
The problem with that in the short term is that there is nobody suitable at present to lead the party and why would a conservative government with 4 years to go risk a general election in an uncertain climate that could lose them their majority. Furthermore how would you overcome the Fixed Term Act
On topic: Looking at the chart, I'd say that a more accurate comment would be that YouGov over-estimated UKIP support, rather than on-line polls generally. The error in the other pollsters' results was small to negligible. So this could be a problem specific to YouGov.
Having said that, I think that the discrepancy between phone and online polls is certainly a real effect across pollsters. It's probably explained by the enthusiasm of the Brexiters causing the partially self-selected samples in the online polls to be distorted.
Message for mods/TSE/OGH/Robert - would it be possible to stop posting embedded google tables (perhaps a jpeg of the top and then a link to the full table would work well?).
Not only does it cover the comments section for that post on the iPhone Chrome app, but it wrecks Chrome browsing on a Mac until that post is off the first page (the cursor defaults to the first cell of the table after the page has fully loaded).
Ta!
Seconded...iPhone / Chrome app went into meltdown when I logged onto PB with that google sheets embedded.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
Maybe the Americans and Koreans are offering goods and services Europeans want to buy. What I am still struggling to understand is how making it harder to do business in Europe is going to help UK companies.
Perhaps they are. But apparently if you do that, non-membership of the single market is no real bar to export success, is it?
The benefits of single market membership are grossly overstated.
And the costs understated -
1. The protectionist cost, involving the UK not sourcing imports from the cheapest suppliers due to EU protection.
2. The regulatory cost, which remember falls on all UK producers, not just those exporting to the EU.
Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. And of course current firms which export to the EU are already compliant from a regulatory point of view - so there is no additional barrier related to regulatory costs that they would have to meet.
Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades. I still don't understand how we benefit from making it harder to do business in a market of 500 million people than it is currently.
There will always be regulatory costs for business. They will just be different if we are not part of the EU. If you do not make kettles, then what the EU says about them is irrelevant.
That said, your point 1 is interesting. Do you have a link to something that could give more info on this?
Comments
Bull-fighting subsidies (which were only ever indirect) were banned in October 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11961010/EU-cuts-subsidies-that-support-Spanish-bullfighting.html
Did you have any opportunity to question them or vote for them?
Politicisation of the police? 'Twas always there; now you can at least see it, put a name on it and vote for it or against it.
People disagree, for valid reasons. A good barrister can make a convincing case on both sides of the argument. It's why there is a betting market
You just can't keep a failed and discredited politician down can you?
I am stating the facts, you smear, he is a worthy successor to Alastair Campbell.
The Stronger In Campaign
David,
We’re being outspent in this campaign.
The other side have not only got Boris Johnson and Michael Gove’s Leave Campaign, they’ve also got all UKIP's resources at their disposal – an extra £4 million we don’t have.
PLUS, Nigel Farage has a cunning plan. UKIP donors have set up or funded over 20 ‘allied’ organisations who can each spend £700,000 in this campaign, giving them up to another £14 million – twice as much as we’re allowed to spend.
David - UKIP donors want to buy this referendum, and we have to stop them. Donate right now and a group of supporters will match your contribution – doubling the impact your money has
Of course the same goes for MPs of all stripes.
Cf Kippers are "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".
rcs1000 said:
Given that Kasich and Cruz are no longer campaigning for the nomination, I'm not sure we should read too much into the West Virginia Republican primary.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's not only the percentages that count. The number of votes for Trump count even more: 151,000 in WV and 119,500 from Nebraska, where the ever sly Cruz hoped for a re-launch of his presidential bid.
With all the focus on the referendum and the associated Tory in-fighting, it ought to be an easy hold for Labour.
PCCs are not about politicising the police. It would be quite wrong for the PCC to involve himself in specific cases. And it would be quite wrong for the police force to bend to theri perception of his will in specific cases. Of course there is always a risk that this will happen but there should be checks and balances.
What is right is that police priorities, resources and budgets should be responsible to someone democratically accountable. This is what the PCCs provide: previously the budgets and priorities were set in private by appointed delegates (they were often council members, but their police oversight role was rarely highlighted/considered by voters).
Democratic accountability and transparency are the best way to make the police responsive to the concerns of the public. It's the same reason why I prefer Westminster - no matter how crap our politicians are - to the EU Parliament: I know that it is democratically accountable to members of my demos.
That said, he was definitely entertaining. A perfect dinner party guest. The thought of him being anywhere near the reins of proper power, however, is terrifying.
I find it hard to believe that, in the privacy of their own bathrooms, either of them really wants to leave the single market, but there are advantages for them.
Voter fatigue?
(i) Attacking Trump is seeking to influence another country's internal affairs. Impolite at best
(ii) Realpolitik. Friendship with the US is more important to us than friendship with Afghanistan. Nigeria it would be good to keep close to.
'But not everybody has a wealthy party machine behind them.'
Is that the Lib Dem excuse for doing so badly ?
'Why aren’t we furious with the Scottish party?'
http://tinyurl.com/hyreb6n
Still, the above doesn't alter the fact that the Tories are split and in a mess. Oh I do support Leave though.
'As mentioned upthread, Boris told John Humphries that America had access to the single market. Of course they do. At a cost. He neglected to mention that. Perhaps he thinks in the grand scheme of things the cost doesn't matter.'
Are you claiming tariffs (costs) are a one-way street ?
Or the Conservatives who polled 32%. I've no reason to think that polls that put the party on 35/36% are wrong. Just that, in this round of elections, some people who vote Conservative at Parliamentary level supported Lib Dems, independents, Residents at local level.
Golly, I'd forgotten what a serial fraud he was.
No the expense of single market membership. The USA has access to the single-market.
Of course it does. At a cost.
-------------------------
'A cost' which, however, has not stopped US goods exports to the Eurozone growing more than twice as fast as those from the UK over the last fifteen years.
And, out of interest, Korean ones growing three times as fast.
"Britain generated no electricity from coal on Tuesday morning for what is believed to be the first time since the 19th century, in a major milestone in the decline of the polluting power source. National Grid confirmed that none of Britain's coal stations were running between midnight and 4am. - The Telegraph"
http://www.digitallook.com/cgi-bin/dlmedia/news.cgi?username=&ac=&view=full&story=24390302
If you agonised about your choice for so long, which implies there were arguments on both sides and the decision was difficult to make, how come you are now saying how dreadful the EU is and how we must at all costs leave?
As you say, the obverse of Dave's position.
Elmbridge was a fine example of this - a naturally Conservative area (Hammond is one of its MPs) but in the locals the various Residents groups are able to substantially erode this Conservative vote and I'm afraid John O was part of this and he may draw only slight comfort from the knowledge many of those who voted against him locally will vote Conservative nationally.
On topic, taking polls in a plural situation and extrapolating them to a binary situation may not be wise. If you didn't want to vote Conservative last Thursday, you had a number of options including not voting. In the EU Referendum, if you don't want to vote REMAIN, you have only two - LEAVE or not vote.
It's also lazy analysis to assume the most motivated LEAVE supporters are UKIP supporters and therefore over-stating UKIP means overstating LEAVE. From what I see, LEAVE supporters come in all political colours and none - I may well vote LEAVE but I'm no supporter of UKIP.
It may be this referendum unlike other elections defies compartmentalisation of the electorate and using analytical models to determine GE outcomes may simply not work.
Though SLab certainly bear the most of the blame for their current state, I thought the piece was a little parsimonious on allocating at least some responsibility elsewhere. 'London' Labour were entirely happy to facilitate Scottish talent (such as it was) making their careers at Westminster, and they were fully on board with Project Fear, in fact leading it in certain aspects.
http://order-order.com/2016/05/11/bombshell-migration-stats-imminent/
The benefits of single market membership are grossly overstated.
And the costs understated -
1. The protectionist cost, involving the UK not sourcing imports from the cheapest suppliers due to EU protection.
2. The regulatory cost, which remember falls on all UK producers, not just those exporting to the EU.
Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. And of course current firms which export to the EU are already compliant from a regulatory point of view - so there is no additional barrier related to regulatory costs that they would have to meet.
Those firms wishing to export kettles to the EU will need to meet these requirements. Those not wishing to, need not.
This is exactly what happens already with firms exporting around the world into different markets where product standards may vary.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations while those that do export can choose to adopt international standards as exporters to elsewhere already do.
However product regulations are only a slight fraction of what the EU does.
I still think Remain will win, but it would be better for us to escape the warming water before it boils.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
'The number of EU nationals given NI numbers has always been significantly higher than official migration stats. 257,000 EU nationals came to Britain in the year to September 2015, yet 630,000 got NI numbers, including 170,000 Romanians. '
As most people suspected ,the official figures are just worthless.
How many more people before public services completely collapse ?
The feared great invasion that has not materialised http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/keith-vaz-mp-romania-bulgaria-2979457
Romania migrant No1 exposed as brute who beat up lover http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5363806/keith-vaz-romanian-migrant-exposed-as-crook.html
Not only does it cover the comments section for that post on the iPhone Chrome app, but it wrecks Chrome browsing on a Mac until that post is off the first page (the cursor defaults to the first cell of the table after the page has fully loaded).
Ta!
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
I have doubts as to whether a Leave vote would actually lead to us leaving. Cameron may try for a second vote on a shoddily negotiated deal.
Having said that, I think that the discrepancy between phone and online polls is certainly a real effect across pollsters. It's probably explained by the enthusiasm of the Brexiters causing the partially self-selected samples in the online polls to be distorted.
There will always be regulatory costs for business. They will just be different if we are not part of the EU. If you do not make kettles, then what the EU says about them is irrelevant.
That said, your point 1 is interesting. Do you have a link to something that could give more info on this?