Fewer than 400 have been sent back since EU-Ankara deal came in to effect
The Financial Times reports that some 8,500 people have arrived on Greek islands since the deal came into force, according to the country's migration co-ordination unit.
What a joke. More money thrown at the problem and basically they are doing f##k all. It should be a ferry a day taking illegals back, not a one ferry total.
While I'm sure the causes are various, the number of migrants coming across the Med has dramatically fallen. See:
At its peak in October 2015, 221,000 migrants crossed the Med to Italy and Greece. Last month (April) it was 12,000. You can argue that's not enough, but it's still down 96% or so.
Or this article here:
Has Europe solved its crisis? Refugee arrivals to Greece have dropped by 90%
The sad truth is that both phone polls and Internet polls are crap for different reasons. Phone polls cannot reach significant parts of the population and Internet polls are infested with unrepresentative nutters who actually care.
The skill and luck of a pollster is to turn this sows ear into a silk purse by judging how distorted their sample is and compensating vaguely correctly. Who is doing that better in the present case is really anyone's guess.
I know yougov is a self selecting pool from which the company then picks at random but how do the other online firms work?
So to be included in an online poll you have to first register yourself with the polling company. Doesn't sound a very satisfactory way of producing a truly representative sample, which is borne out by your comments about insurgent parties being overrepresented in online polls across Europe.
With the online/phone polls consistently showing different referendum results with a bit of luck the actual result will go someway to indicating which are the most reliable.
Sadly, for us Labour types, the GE2015 phone polls proved more accurate.
Who would ever have thought that Osborne, Balls, and Cable would do a threesome, all singing off the same hymn sheet for remain. These are extraordinary times
I think we've all been surprised to find out where UKIP's support is strongest.
I don't think that's strictly true: the local elections gave us excellent pointers. However, two things conspired against UKIP:
1. UKIP was not able to corral resources efficiently. As I warned repeatedly pre-GE2015, they suffered badly from SDP disease.
2. There was anti-UKIP tactical voting. In Rochester, many Labour and LibDem voters chose to vote for the Conservative candidate to unseat Mark Reckless. (I admit, this may be Mark Reckless related rather than UKIP related.)
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
So it could be leave just, remain just or a landslide win for remain....clear as mud.
Isn't this fun?
Remain is going to win of course.
The fun really starts from 24th May when we can sit back and wait for all Cameron and Osborne's lies about how we're in for motherhood and apple pie courtesy of their beloved EU blows up in their faces...
Won't make any difference to our fate (we'll be trapped forever in the USE) but at least we'll get to see Cameron, Osborne and the Tory Party generally, cast into oblivion.
If Remain wins, it's same old, same old. The EU constantly tries to centralise power, we constantly complain ineffectually.
What will be the point of complaining? We'll have cast ourselves into the superstate. We'll just have to shut up and let ourselves be devoured...
I think we've all been surprised to find out where UKIP's support is strongest.
I don't think that's strictly true: the local elections gave us excellent pointers. However, two things conspired against UKIP:
1. UKIP was not able to corral resources efficiently. As I warned repeatedly pre-GE2015, they suffered badly from SDP disease.
2. There was anti-UKIP tactical voting. In Rochester, many Labour and LibDem voters chose to vote for the Conservative candidate to unseat Mark Reckless. (I admit, this may be Mark Reckless related rather than UKIP related.)
I think both of those a factor, but was surprised at the UKIP support in Sunderland, while Labour took Grimsby fairly easily for example.
I have basically no confidence in ORB, as there is absolutely no way that only 5% of the population is undecided. (Although it's slightly more plausible than the 3% they had last time.)
But as Plato would no doubt tell us, it's the trend that matters!
I think we've all been surprised to find out where UKIP's support is strongest.
I don't think that's strictly true: the local elections gave us excellent pointers. However, two things conspired against UKIP:
1. UKIP was not able to corral resources efficiently. As I warned repeatedly pre-GE2015, they suffered badly from SDP disease.
2. There was anti-UKIP tactical voting. In Rochester, many Labour and LibDem voters chose to vote for the Conservative candidate to unseat Mark Reckless. (I admit, this may be Mark Reckless related rather than UKIP related.)
There were some Tories who were really obsessed with defeating Mark Reckless.
I have basically no confidence in ORB, as there is absolutely no way that only 5% of the population is undecided. (Although it's slightly more plausible than the 3% they had last time.)
Those are amongst all respondents.
Amongst those certain to vote, the numbers are 53/47 to Remain (excluding undecideds) which isn't so bad, and in line with other polls.
However, the fundamentals underlying questions covered within that poll are not good for Leave.
I have basically no confidence in ORB, as there is absolutely no way that only 5% of the population is undecided. (Although it's slightly more plausible than the 3% they had last time.)
Some of their previous polls had 0% undecided as they used some kind of forcing mechanism.
I exclude them from my pointless number crunching.
Who would ever have thought that Osborne, Balls, and Cable would do a threesome, all singing off the same hymn sheet for remain. These are extraordinary times
Ugh! If I never had to see Osborne again it would be too soon.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Its the non-tarrif barriers, that are the real problem for a service based economy like ours.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
The prospect of Cameron leaving ASAP and then (hopefully) Osborne's complete and total political evisceration and Tory Party itself being cast into oblivion, is the only thing that's going to make the next few weeks bearable.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Its the non-tarrif barriers, that are the real problem for a service based economy like ours.
The non tariff barriers are not going to change regardless any time this century. There are also not any tariffs on them as far as I can tell.
I have basically no confidence in ORB, as there is absolutely no way that only 5% of the population is undecided. (Although it's slightly more plausible than the 3% they had last time.)
Those are amongst all respondents.
Amongst those certain to vote, the numbers are 53/47 to Remain (excluding undecideds) which isn't so bad, and in line with other polls.
However, the fundamentals underlying questions covered within that poll are not good for Leave.
The truth is that there has been remarkably little movement, either way, since the start of this campaign.
Our best hopes are (1) that on-line polls are more accurate than phone; or (2) something happens in the EU that brings the issues into sharp focus.
With regards to 1, I'm not particularly optimistic. 2 offers a better chance, and a reflaring of the Greek crisis would seem to be the most likely 'bonus'.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Its the non-tarrif barriers, that are the real problem for a service based economy like ours.
The non tariff barriers are not going to change regardless any time this century. There are also not any tariffs on them as far as I can tell.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
Which do we want?
We want as much say in determining the global terms of trade as possible. The Denis Healey quote posted on here yesterday that said that pro-Europeans are imperialists with an inferiority complex was quite close to the bone.
I have basically no confidence in ORB, as there is absolutely no way that only 5% of the population is undecided. (Although it's slightly more plausible than the 3% they had last time.)
Those are amongst all respondents.
Amongst those certain to vote, the numbers are 53/47 to Remain (excluding undecideds) which isn't so bad, and in line with other polls.
However, the fundamentals underlying questions covered within that poll are not good for Leave.
The truth is that there has been remarkably little movement, either way, since the start of this campaign.
Our best hopes are (1) that on-line polls are more accurate than phone; or (2) something happens in the EU that brings the issues into sharp focus.
With regards to 1, I'm not particularly optimistic. 2 offers a better chance, and a reflaring of the Greek crisis would seem to be the most likely 'bonus'.
What will be will be, and we will get what we deserve.
I'm not going to beat myself up about the result. I'm satisfied I'm doing (and will have done) everything I can to win it for Leave. So my conscience will be clear.
This was always going to be an extremely difficult fight to win.
I will satisfy myself with the fact that even though it might well be Remain by 5-10% they'll only have won it by threatening WWIII and economic armageddon.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Its the non-tarrif barriers, that are the real problem for a service based economy like ours.
The non tariff barriers are not going to change regardless any time this century. There are also not any tariffs on them as far as I can tell.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
Which do we want?
Which do we want? No idea. I only speak for me.
However "non tariff barriers" sounds like a bad thing. Sneaky stuff to prevent free trade and all that sort of protectionist nonsense. That is until you look at them when they are actually about the right to decide what safety standards apply Halloween costumes for example so in that sense I am for free trade not TTIP type arrangements.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Its the non-tarrif barriers, that are the real problem for a service based economy like ours.
The non tariff barriers are not going to change regardless any time this century. There are also not any tariffs on them as far as I can tell.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
Which do we want?
What we need is a pan continental amalgamation of free trade areas committed to reducing non-tarrif barriers, with a supranational court system to back it up.
If only someone would found such a Union in Europe.
What an amazing coincidence! There used to be a chap - a very pleasant chap, though a Conservative - who used to post here on PB. You seem to have the exactly same name as he did.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Dan Hannan has said tonight that he would NOT leave the single market. Gove has declared he will. This is becoming a farce and just shows complete disarray in leave.
OK that's a significant shift. The kind of thing Number 10 would have been expecting, I think, folliowing their WAR-krieg (yes yes, I know).
The headline figures from last month are almost identical:
"Considering only those who say they will definitely vote, Remain’s vote share holds steady from last month at 51 per cent while Leave dips by a single point to 45 per cent (well within margin of error). "
TSE is quoting from all respondents, not all those certain to vote.
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
What an amazing coincidence! There used to be a chap - a very pleasant chap, though a Conservative - who used to post here on PB. You seem to have the exactly same name as he did.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Dan Hannan has said tonight that he would NOT leave the single market. Gove has declared he will. This is becoming a farce and just shows complete disarray in leave.
The decision is leave or remain at the moment. Hannan isn't going to get free movement past the UK people for long. That said I do like Dan Hannan.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
Fake Dave,I pray this sh!t is finished this year.
The establishment always wins,so if remain do win with the help of Government resources,my hope would be enough backbenchers telling him it's time to go after the referendum.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
Fake Dave,I pray this sh!t is finished this year.
The establishment always wins,so if remain do win with the help of Government resources,my hope would be enough backbenchers telling him it's time to go after the referendum.
However "non tariff barriers" sounds like a bad thing. Sneaky stuff to prevent free trade and all that sort of protectionist nonsense. That is until you look at them when they are actually about the right to decide what safety standards apply Halloween costumes for example so in that sense I am for free trade not TTIP type arrangements.
The problem is that it's not as simple as that.
Take Canada. The US and Canada entered NAFTA. Then provincial governments passed laws that prevented the sale of certain products in their states. Said products happened to be produced by US companies (seeds), and didn't affect Canadian companies.
Who's going to enter into a free trade agreement with you if they think you are likely to sneakily avoid it once its been signed?
That's why even EFTA has a Court (in EU member Luxembourg), and why NAFTA has ISDS tribunals. All these exist to confirm that countries are abiding by their treaty obligations.
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
Now that is interesting.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
However "non tariff barriers" sounds like a bad thing. Sneaky stuff to prevent free trade and all that sort of protectionist nonsense. That is until you look at them when they are actually about the right to decide what safety standards apply Halloween costumes for example so in that sense I am for free trade not TTIP type arrangements.
The problem is that it's not as simple as that.
Take Canada. The US and Canada entered NAFTA. Then provincial governments passed laws that prevented the sale of certain products in their states. Said products happened to be produced by US companies (seeds), and didn't affect Canadian companies.
Who's going to enter into a free trade agreement with you if they think you are likely to sneakily avoid it once its been signed?
That's why even EFTA has a Court (in EU member Luxembourg), and why NAFTA has ISDS tribunals. All these exist to confirm that countries are abiding by their treaty obligations.
Yes, but there has to be a certain amount of sovereignty. In effect NAFTA over rides Canada.
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
Now that is interesting.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
That's an interesting question; probably, is the answer. Although (taking a pessimistic, not-EFTA view) they would be quite within their rights to pass laws preventing the French versions of financial advisors from recommending us. And there are a whole other layer of questions that would need to be sorted via bilateral treaty - such as double taxation of dividend income and the like.
What an amazing coincidence! There used to be a chap - a very pleasant chap, though a Conservative - who used to post here on PB. You seem to have the exactly same name as he did. Some of us suspected at times that he had a blog. Are you in any way related?
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
Now that is interesting.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
That's an interesting question; probably, is the answer. Although (taking a pessimistic, not-EFTA view) they would be quite within their rights to pass laws preventing the French versions of financial advisors from recommending us. And there are a whole other layer of questions that would need to be sorted via bilateral treaty - such as double taxation of dividend income and the like.
Well, there is the internet for sales. Plenty in the UK bought Icelandic investments after all. As for double taxation there are already treaties on those.
Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister with longstanding ties to Britain, said he is "very worried" British voters could opt to leave the European Union, fearing it could weaken a political arrangement that has given Europe its longest-ever period of peace and prosperity.....
....Sikorski, who has also held the position of defense minister and speaker of parliament in Poland and is now a senior fellow at Harvard University, argued that a weaker EU would help Russia.
"There is no surprise that Russian media, Russian troll factories, Russian money is supporting Brexit," said Sikorski. "It makes sense that Russia would like to deal with Europe one-by-one and not with the European Union as a whole. That would strengthen Russia's negotiating position vis-a-vis every member state. What surprises me is that some people in smaller countries don't see that."
Radek Sikorski might have helped his cause, had he been less rude about the UK in the past.
General Radek? Wasn't he the baddy in Air Force One?
Once leave adopts the fair message of ETA membership and accepts free movement of labour they can make a positive case. Exit from the single market as Gove is seeking will be demolished in his debate on the 3rd June, so they only have just over 14 days to get their message together
If we left the EU, how much do you think would have to be paid in duty for our exports to the EU and how much duty do you think would be levied on their exports to us on WTO rules?
Dan Hannan has said tonight that he would NOT leave the single market. Gove has declared he will. This is becoming a farce and just shows complete disarray in leave.
The decision is leave or remain at the moment. Hannan isn't going to get free movement past the UK people for long. That said I do like Dan Hannan.
So you decide to leave and hope no one notices that Dan Hannan and Michael Gove, the two big beasts of leave, are at loggerheads with each other. How on earth does Gove explain that at his TV debate on the 3rd June , because he will be asked
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
It's an irrelevancy, as there is no chance that there would tariffs levied on goods between the EU and the UK in the event of Brexit.
So we'd be in a free trade area with no migration? Hurrah!
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
Now that is interesting.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
That's an interesting question; probably, is the answer. Although (taking a pessimistic, not-EFTA view) they would be quite within their rights to pass laws preventing the French versions of financial advisors from recommending us. And there are a whole other layer of questions that would need to be sorted via bilateral treaty - such as double taxation of dividend income and the like.
Well, there is the internet for sales. Plenty in the UK bought Icelandic investments after all. As for double taxation there are already treaties on those.
Iceland is a member of EFTA and Icesave and the like were allowed to sell into the UK as they were "regulated" by the Icelandic version of the FSA. (Which was like the FSA, only without the whole "making sure the banks were vaguely solvent" element...)
What an amazing coincidence! There used to be a chap - a very pleasant chap, though a Conservative - who used to post here on PB. You seem to have the exactly same name as he did. Some of us suspected at times that he had a blog. Are you in any way related?
I don´t know, Mr White. I never managed to track down his blog. But he was such a nice Conservative that at times I thought he was really a Lib Dem.
Now you're just trying to start a fight.
Talking of how the fight started, I was in the supermarket the other day, when I bumped into and knocked down a gentleman of diminished stature. He got back up, looked me in the eye and said "I'm not happy!" so I said "Well, which one are you then?" and that is how the fight started.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
It depends how comprehensive the defeat is.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Cameron has to win and win big or our politics will take a dark and depressing turn.
@steve_hawkes: Lynton Crosby says Vote Leave should spend less time worrying about TV debates - and more time finding/delivering a clearer/simpler message
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
It depends how comprehensive the defeat is.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Sorry, the Tories will be out of power for a generation (maybe longer) very shortly. Its no more than they deserve.
Like most of this discussion: it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
Now that is interesting.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
That's an interesting question; probably, is the answer. Although (taking a pessimistic, not-EFTA view) they would be quite within their rights to pass laws preventing the French versions of financial advisors from recommending us. And there are a whole other layer of questions that would need to be sorted via bilateral treaty - such as double taxation of dividend income and the like.
Well, there is the internet for sales. Plenty in the UK bought Icelandic investments after all. As for double taxation there are already treaties on those.
Iceland is a member of EFTA and Icesave and the like were allowed to sell into the UK as they were "regulated" by the Icelandic version of the FSA. (Which was like the FSA, only without the whole "making sure the banks were vaguely solvent" element...)
But they neither pay of have free movement do they?
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
It depends how comprehensive the defeat is.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Sorry, the Tories will be out of power for a generation (maybe longer) very shortly. Its no more than they deserve.
Everyone's going to vote Labour for 25 years? Really?
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
It depends how comprehensive the defeat is.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Cameron has to win and win big or our politics will take a dark and depressing turn.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
I have taken my wife to York today for three days to celebrate our 52nd anniversary. I have not been on line all day but when I log on tonight it seems as if the whole world has fallen in on leave with the bitterest of language and hostility to David Cameron and remain. As far as I can tell there have been two goodish polls for remain and one for leave. It is far from over as I can see but why are leave waving the white flag
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
It depends how comprehensive the defeat is.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Sorry, the Tories will be out of power for a generation (maybe longer) very shortly. Its no more than they deserve.
Everyone's going to vote Labour for 25 years? Really?
It might be a Scottish generation, so maybe 5 years?
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
All treaties denude countries of sovereignty to some extent. Our membership of NATO, by requiring us to come to the defence of fellow signatories in the event they are attacked, reduced our sovereignty.
Treaties that lower tariffs do this in a transparent way. Products with the following codes from the following countries now have tariffs of [x], and these deals are largely symmetrical.
But NTBs are more complex. Take the current India-EU FTA negotiation. India wants the ability of Indian firms, based in India, with Indian trained lawyers, to be able to offer conveyencing services into the UK market. This is an NTB, in that we currently have a bunch of restrictions on who is able to offer these.
Now, we could fold on this, and allow Indian lawyers to offer this service to UK home buyers (which would no doubt save them some money, at the expense of lowering solicitors' incomes in the UK), and it might make sense for us to do so. But if we enter into a treaty that removes those NTBs, then it restricts the ability of the UK government in the future to regulate the conveyencing market.
We get more free trade, but at the expense of sovereignty.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over the refernedum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
Do you know, I have a feeling that you are both right!
I sometimes feel the temptation to vote Remain - but if I do that, and Remain wins, Mr Cameron will immediately declare that he has a democratic mandate to...... Well, to do whatever he likes.
The man has form.
The AV referendum rejected AV.
But the Conservatives interpreted the defeat of AV as a vote in favour of FPTP - which it most certainly was not. (I think we need another thread on AV, by the way.)
Meanwhile, the only way to stop Cameron in his tracks must be to vote for Leave - without accepting for one moment the foolish reactionary arguments put forward by Gove, Farage, B Johnson, Redwood, IDS, Davies and Co.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
I have taken my wife to York today for three days to celebrate our 52nd anniversary. I have not been on line all day but when I log on tonight it seems as if the whole world has fallen in on leave with the bitterest of language and hostility to David Cameron and remain. As far as I can tell there have been two goodish polls for remain and one for leave. It is far from over as I can see but why are leave waving the white flag
To be honest I've barely looked at the polls.
I've been bitter towards Cameron and Osborne since the day they shamefully brought a foreign leader into MY country (that's my country, not their's) to threaten me!
That was the final straw for me as far as these two Posh Boys are concerned.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
I have taken my wife to York today for three days to celebrate our 52nd anniversary. I have not been on line all day but when I log on tonight it seems as if the whole world has fallen in on leave with the bitterest of language and hostility to David Cameron and remain. As far as I can tell there have been two goodish polls for remain and one for leave. It is far from over as I can see but why are leave waving the white flag
To be honest I've barely looked at the polls.
I've been bitter towards Cameron and Osborne since the day they shamefully brought a foreign leader into MY country (that's my country, not their's) to threaten me!
That was the final straw for me as far as these two Posh Boys are concerned.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
All treaties denude countries of sovereignty to some extent. Our membership of NATO, by requiring us to come to the defence of fellow signatories in the event they are attacked, reduced our sovereignty.
Treaties that lower tariffs do this in a transparent way. Products with the following codes from the following countries now have tariffs of [x], and these deals are largely symmetrical.
But NTBs are more complex. Take the current India-EU FTA negotiation. India wants the ability of Indian firms, based in India, with Indian trained lawyers, to be able to offer conveyencing services into the UK market. This is an NTB, in that we currently have a bunch of restrictions on who is able to offer these.
Now, we could fold on this, and allow Indian lawyers to offer this service to UK home buyers (which would no doubt save them some money, at the expense of lowering solicitors' incomes in the UK), and it might make sense for us to do so. But if we enter into a treaty that removes those NTBs, then it restricts the ability of the UK government in the future to regulate the conveyencing market.
We get more free trade, but at the expense of sovereignty.
That's interesting. Why can't we allow Indian lawyers with sufficient insurance, with our ability to regulate them as well?
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
All treaties denude countries of sovereignty to some extent. Our membership of NATO, by requiring us to come to the defence of fellow signatories in the event they are attacked, reduced our sovereignty.
Treaties that lower tariffs do this in a transparent way. Products with the following codes from the following countries now have tariffs of [x], and these deals are largely symmetrical.
But NTBs are more complex. Take the current India-EU FTA negotiation. India wants the ability of Indian firms, based in India, with Indian trained lawyers, to be able to offer conveyencing services into the UK market. This is an NTB, in that we currently have a bunch of restrictions on who is able to offer these.
Now, we could fold on this, and allow Indian lawyers to offer this service to UK home buyers (which would no doubt save them some money, at the expense of lowering solicitors' incomes in the UK), and it might make sense for us to do so. But if we enter into a treaty that removes those NTBs, then it restricts the ability of the UK government in the future to regulate the conveyencing market.
We get more free trade, but at the expense of sovereignty.
That's interesting. Why can't we allow Indian lawyers with sufficient insurance, with our ability to regulate them as well?
That's also a very good question. Unfortunately I'm going to bed now. Please don't let me forget to answer this tomorrow.
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
I have taken my wife to York today for three days to celebrate our 52nd anniversary. I have not been on line all day but when I log on tonight it seems as if the whole world has fallen in on leave with the bitterest of language and hostility to David Cameron and remain. As far as I can tell there have been two goodish polls for remain and one for leave. It is far from over as I can see but why are leave waving the white flag
To be honest I've barely looked at the polls.
I've been bitter towards Cameron and Osborne since the day they shamefully brought a foreign leader into MY country (that's my country, not their's) to threaten me!
That was the final straw for me as far as these two Posh Boys are concerned.
I would venture to suggest you have been bitter with them both as they have decided in their opinion UK was better in than out the EU, and that you may have underestimated their ruthless nature to win their argument
Dave won't have to worry anymore about 50 letters. I imagine it will be far closer to 100.
There are no words to describe my loathing for Cameron. He's worse than Heath.
Far, far worse than Heath. At least Heath was honest about his position and it was a view (however misguided) born out of WWII.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
Yes. I first said on here months ago that Cameron would become the Tory Blair, loathed with a passion by his own party. I see my thesis has been taken up.
He will become the lightning conductor for all the Tory shame and self hatred that will bubble over - once we have voted IN. He will be the symbol of the GREAT LIE that was told to the British people, etc etc. And as the EU comes after more of our sovereignty, which it will (because it always does) the anger at Cameron will only grow.
He'll win his vote. But then he can look forward to a lifetime of contumely, poured over his silly pink head.
And just as Labour has been cast into the political wilderness, so to will the Conservatives. Their self-loathing and shame over this grubby referendum will mirror Labours over Iraq.
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
I have taken my wife to York today for three days to celebrate our 52nd anniversary. I have not been on line all day but when I log on tonight it seems as if the whole world has fallen in on leave with the bitterest of language and hostility to David Cameron and remain. As far as I can tell there have been two goodish polls for remain and one for leave. It is far from over as I can see but why are leave waving the white flag
To be honest I've barely looked at the polls.
I've been bitter towards Cameron and Osborne since the day they shamefully brought a foreign leader into MY country (that's my country, not their's) to threaten me!
That was the final straw for me as far as these two Posh Boys are concerned.
I seem to recall that you were flirting with voting Ed Miliband a year or so back. That's fine, but I find it rather difficult to square with the current bombast.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
All treaties denude countries of sovereignty to some extent. Our membership of NATO, by requiring us to come to the defence of fellow signatories in the event they are attacked, reduced our sovereignty.
Treaties that lower tariffs do this in a transparent way. Products with the following codes from the following countries now have tariffs of [x], and these deals are largely symmetrical.
But NTBs are more complex. Take the current India-EU FTA negotiation. India wants the ability of Indian firms, based in India, with Indian trained lawyers, to be able to offer conveyencing services into the UK market. This is an NTB, in that we currently have a bunch of restrictions on who is able to offer these.
Now, we could fold on this, and allow Indian lawyers to offer this service to UK home buyers (which would no doubt save them some money, at the expense of lowering solicitors' incomes in the UK), and it might make sense for us to do so. But if we enter into a treaty that removes those NTBs, then it restricts the ability of the UK government in the future to regulate the conveyencing market.
We get more free trade, but at the expense of sovereignty.
Yes I agree the situation can be more complex with NTBs, but NTBs of course come in many shapes and sizes.
So for example deals about restricting anti-dumping activities would be simpler than the example you quote, and these are one of the most serious problems world trade faces having proliferated over recent decades.
@steve_hawkes: Lynton Crosby says Vote Leave should spend less time worrying about TV debates - and more time finding/delivering a clearer/simpler message
Comments
Has Europe solved its crisis? Refugee arrivals to Greece have dropped by 90%
http://flip.it/huN_e
It does rather confirm Antifrank's contention that calling a June rather than autumn referendum may well have been Daves big mistake.
1. UKIP was not able to corral resources efficiently. As I warned repeatedly pre-GE2015, they suffered badly from SDP disease.
2. There was anti-UKIP tactical voting. In Rochester, many Labour and LibDem voters chose to vote for the Conservative candidate to unseat Mark Reckless. (I admit, this may be Mark Reckless related rather than UKIP related.)
Never understood the loathing of him
Amongst those certain to vote, the numbers are 53/47 to Remain (excluding undecideds) which isn't so bad, and in line with other polls.
However, the fundamentals underlying questions covered within that poll are not good for Leave.
They've gone quiet.
I exclude them from my pointless number crunching.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/732324436557348864
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593617/Two-MPs-marriages-tatters-affairs-blonde-writer-High-profile-SNP-figures-split-wives-caught-love-triangle.html
There isn't enough mind bleach in the world.....
The answer is £4.6 billion on our exports to the EU and £8.9 billion on theirs to us.
A small Remain lead.
Our best hopes are (1) that on-line polls are more accurate than phone; or (2) something happens in the EU that brings the issues into sharp focus.
With regards to 1, I'm not particularly optimistic. 2 offers a better chance, and a reflaring of the Greek crisis would seem to be the most likely 'bonus'.
Which do we want?
I'm not going to beat myself up about the result. I'm satisfied I'm doing (and will have done) everything I can to win it for Leave. So my conscience will be clear.
This was always going to be an extremely difficult fight to win.
I will satisfy myself with the fact that even though it might well be Remain by 5-10% they'll only have won it by threatening WWIII and economic armageddon.
And, still, no-one likes the EU.
However "non tariff barriers" sounds like a bad thing. Sneaky stuff to prevent free trade and all that sort of protectionist nonsense. That is until you look at them when they are actually about the right to decide what safety standards apply Halloween costumes for example so in that sense I am for free trade not TTIP type arrangements.
If only someone would found such a Union in Europe.
Some of us suspected at times that he had a blog.
Are you in any way related?
"Considering only those who say they will definitely vote, Remain’s vote share holds steady from last month at 51 per cent while Leave dips by a single point to 45 per cent (well within margin of error). "
TSE is quoting from all respondents, not all those certain to vote.
Firstly, bear in mind that I am in favour of free movement of labour, albeit one where people paid for compulsory NHS health insurance. (Which would have the advantage of minimising bureaucracy, maximising government revenue, and not distorting price signals.)
With that said, my business is very dependent on the single market in financial services. This holds that if you - as a financial services firm - are regulated by one country's regulator, you can operate in all. For small fund management companies, such as my own, this is a massive positive. A very large portion of our business is selling to French and Swedish savers. (By contrast, to sell the Swiss or the Australians or the Canadians, we need to either open a local subsidiary or pay a local agent to provide regulatory cover, costing c. 30% of revenues.)
It's not solely about tariffs.
http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/
If so... Yes.
The establishment always wins,so if remain do win with the help of Government resources,my hope would be enough backbenchers telling him it's time to go after the referendum.
Cameron is just a liar and a fake.
#DestroyGeorgeOsborne
Take Canada. The US and Canada entered NAFTA. Then provincial governments passed laws that prevented the sale of certain products in their states. Said products happened to be produced by US companies (seeds), and didn't affect Canadian companies.
Who's going to enter into a free trade agreement with you if they think you are likely to sneakily avoid it once its been signed?
That's why even EFTA has a Court (in EU member Luxembourg), and why NAFTA has ISDS tribunals. All these exist to confirm that countries are abiding by their treaty obligations.
Can they buy from you in the UK though, rather than you sell to them?
The seeds for the Tories exit from power for a very long time have been sowed. The clock is ticking, just a matter of when time runs out.
Ultimately, removing non-tariff barriers means stripping countries of sovereignty. That is the very nature of them; free trade treaties like NAFTA and TTIP that lower NTBs constrain the ability of national governments to make policy as they see fit.
--------
I'm struggling a bit with this line of reasoning, Robert.
Presumably you could say the same thing about **any** trade restriction, be it tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping moves, regulatory barriers etc etc.
A single vote has yet to be cast.
The one thing I hope we all learned from last year was hubris is not a good look before the results come in.
Talking of how the fight started, I was in the supermarket the other day, when I bumped into and knocked down a gentleman of diminished stature. He got back up, looked me in the eye and said "I'm not happy!" so I said "Well, which one are you then?" and that is how the fight started.
I see a direct line between the Conservatives who cheered when Chris Patten lost his seat, the gang of Redwood, Gorman, Cash, IDS et al who rendered the party incapable of opposing the rise of Blair and Brown, and the present lynch mob out for Cameron's blood today.
If Cameron goes down, the long project to rescue the natural party of government from the grip of an ideological virus will go down too. With Labour led by Corbyn and the Lib Dems in disarray the country can ill afford such a train of events.
Cameron has to win and win big or our politics will take a dark and depressing turn.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/731240757227573248
'The Day The Polls Turned'
But they neither pay of have free movement do they?
Treaties that lower tariffs do this in a transparent way. Products with the following codes from the following countries now have tariffs of [x], and these deals are largely symmetrical.
But NTBs are more complex. Take the current India-EU FTA negotiation. India wants the ability of Indian firms, based in India, with Indian trained lawyers, to be able to offer conveyencing services into the UK market. This is an NTB, in that we currently have a bunch of restrictions on who is able to offer these.
Now, we could fold on this, and allow Indian lawyers to offer this service to UK home buyers (which would no doubt save them some money, at the expense of lowering solicitors' incomes in the UK), and it might make sense for us to do so. But if we enter into a treaty that removes those NTBs, then it restricts the ability of the UK government in the future to regulate the conveyencing market.
We get more free trade, but at the expense of sovereignty.
https://twitter.com/1000cuts/status/732332795415175168
I sometimes feel the temptation to vote Remain - but if I do that, and Remain wins, Mr Cameron will immediately declare that he has a democratic mandate to...... Well, to do whatever he likes.
The man has form.
The AV referendum rejected AV.
But the Conservatives interpreted the defeat of AV as a vote in favour of FPTP - which it most certainly was not. (I think we need another thread on AV, by the way.)
Meanwhile, the only way to stop Cameron in his tracks must be to vote for Leave - without accepting for one moment the foolish reactionary arguments put forward by Gove, Farage, B Johnson, Redwood, IDS, Davies and Co.
I've been bitter towards Cameron and Osborne since the day they shamefully brought a foreign leader into MY country (that's my country, not their's) to threaten me!
That was the final straw for me as far as these two Posh Boys are concerned.
More unites the Tory Party than divides it.
So for example deals about restricting anti-dumping activities would be simpler than the example you quote, and these are one of the most serious problems world trade faces having proliferated over recent decades.