It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.
Perhaps in an ideal world, but his job is not do do what is "fair". It is not to do the best for the Greeks, or even the best for the EU. His job is to do what is best for Germans and he is doing that to the best of his ability.
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
No doubt. bailing out the mediterranean is not popular in Germany.
But of course he isn't slow to ask the UK to contribute to a mess of Germany's making.
If you haven't read Flexcit, which (by some accounts) the Civil Service are currently using to plan for Brexit, it's worth doing so. However a brief overview of the It gives some of the highlights of EFTA membership would include:
1) Cut out c.75% of the EU legislative corpus 2) Repatriate fisheries and agricultural policy 3) Lower overall membership cost, even if we opt back into additional programmes like the Single European Sky and Horizon 2020 4) 'Emergency brake' on freedom of movement via Articles 112-3 5) An independent voice on the global regulatory bodies which actually set many of the market standards we're told come from the EU 6) A veto over some aspects of EU single market legislation 7) The ability to sign our own trade deals 8) By leaving the EU, we firmly opt-out of further integration (e.g. the tax harmonisation and European army proposals which have been put on hold until after the referendum). We can then choose to use EFTA as a stepping stone to a looser bilateral deal, or remain there as long as it suits us. However, it puts Britain back in control of its own destiny.
There's a reason the Norwegians oppose EU membership by 70.8% to 17.8%
Just in case anyone's at a loose end this drizzly afternoon: Nigel Farage, Gisela Stuart, Paddy Ashdown and Michael Heseltine are debating in Sutton Coldfield today at 12:00 noon.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?
Miss Plato, that and EU citizens getting polling cards does not fill one with confidence in the integrity of the vote. We must hope for a decisive result so that the outcome is something that we can be sure is genuine rather than caused by such nonsense.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)
Genuine question which I've always wondered about - how, if at all, does anyone check that someone hasn't voted twice? For example a student registered at home and at college could vote in both locations (one by post or proxy, if distance is an issue). Does anyone bother to check? I suspect I can guess the answer, but does anyone know definitively?
There is no check between the two. But it would be a relatively easy cross check if all was centred on the NI. It would just need the databases from the "marked" register in each electoral district to be cross checked with all other districts via the NI. It is the marked registers that political parties etc can buy after an election to see who did and who did not vote.
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?
There's a wealth of detail in the latest ONS report:
I wish more people read those, life would be much more interesting, and conceivably, more civil.
Like most people, I'm torn on immigration; there are pros and cons, but someone like me (I just scrape in as a HNWI) get pretty much all the pros, whereas my nephews (WWC in the trades) get the cons. However, I think it's lazy leadership to just fold one's arms and say, 'open, globalised economy, dear old thing, nothing to be done'.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
If only he had spent more time worrying about the Original Citizens he might not be struggling so much.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
Miss Plato, that and EU citizens getting polling cards does not fill one with confidence in the integrity of the vote. We must hope for a decisive result so that the outcome is something that we can be sure is genuine rather than caused by such nonsense.
Hundreds of postal vote packs have gone missing in County Durham too according to Northern Echo. It's a complete mess.
It didn't used to be like this. I never even considered our system was bent or open to abuse until about 10yrs ago. It totally erodes trust and confidence in the result.
Some wag on Twitter last night joked that after the ORB poll, the registration website would stay open until polling day...
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
tbh, that's the kind of sophistry that repels me and I have no doubt will backfire. It's bollocks.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?
Fewer than 500 people.
Further, is point out The decisions are by Uk courts and reference the EHCR. nevertheless, we have a much broader interpretation than do, for example, the French.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)
Net immigrants from Commonwealth countries & their families = 73,000
Assuming some need for skilled immigration from elsewhere, including the EU, tens of thousands is not achievable (even if we stretched it to 99,000).
Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
We do need politicians, but specifically we need politicians who have not studied PPE, not those that have.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
tbh, that's the kind of sophistry that repels me and I have no doubt will backfire. It's bollocks.
I was good friends with a big wig at the New Statesman in a previous life - they called them *new arrivals*.
Genuine question which I've always wondered about - how, if at all, does anyone check that someone hasn't voted twice? For example a student registered at home and at college could vote in both locations (one by post or proxy, if distance is an issue). Does anyone bother to check? I suspect I can guess the answer, but does anyone know definitively?
There is no check between the two. But it would be a relatively easy cross check if all was centred on the NI. It would just need the databases from the "marked" register in each electoral district to be cross checked with all other districts via the NI. It is the marked registers that political parties etc can buy after an election to see who did and who did not vote.
Many thanks for the answer - I suspected that, in practice, there was no check. Let's hope people are honest!
On a related question, which you may know the answer to, is it legal for one person to vote in two separate local elections on the same date? In other words could my hypothetical student vote in a local election at home on the same date as voting in a local election at their college location. I'm guessing it would be legal as the two are separate elections, but it doesn't feel quite right.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)
Net immigrants from Commonwealth countries & their families = 73,000
Assuming some need for skilled immigration from elsewhere, including the EU, tens of thousands is not achievable (even if we stretched it to 99,000).
And which article in our unwritten constitution prevents us from changing the rules?
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
We do need politicians, but specifically we need politicians who have not studied PPE, not those that have.
Nigel Lawson studied PPE, plenty of effective politicians have studied it, yes we want politicians who have studied other subjects too but I have no problem with people who want to be politicians studying politics and economics especially when they pay for it
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
Get well soon, Remember having it in primary school, wasn't pleasant!
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
PB is excellent when you're feeling grotty. Short comments and easy to pick up/put down/catch up.
I can't manage to read newspaper articles when I'm urgh - takes too much effort/focus - I jump straight to the comments and rely on others who have!
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
No, Mr. Charles, because I once mentioned on this site that I was not a citizen but one HM subjects and proud of it. I then got buried by people telling me I was wrong because of some Act of Parliament, the details of which I cannot remember, had decreed that we were now in fact citizens of the UK and citizens of the EU. So it is not a line I use anymore, regardless of personal feelings.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
Beat me too it! Why do we talk about citizenship tests - surely they should be subjectship tests...
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example has had classics courses for hundreds of years
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.
Perhaps in an ideal world, but his job is not do do what is "fair". It is not to do the best for the Greeks, or even the best for the EU. His job is to do what is best for Germans and he is doing that to the best of his ability.
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
No doubt. bailing out the mediterranean is not popular in Germany.
But of course he isn't slow to ask the UK to contribute to a mess of Germany's making.
Again doing what is best for Germany.
For all the talk of European harmony and all that lofty ambition, he is German pure and simple. Had Blair been half as interested in Britain as Schauble is in Germany we would never have given away so much of our rebate with nothing to show for it.
Couldn't read much of it before it was covered with an ad, but I gather he wants the political elite to be allowed to get on with running us plebs without us interfering. That's the way the EU sees it. Elections, democracy, bah.
Anne. It's not hard to see that you are a Leaver but are you a Labour Leaver?
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.
We've moved the former most of the way there.
We could also persuade the locals to breed as well. You never know it might catch on.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuries
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
*feeling naughty*
Remind us Nick, how many Muslim majority countries are democracies?
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuries
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!
English was certainly only introduced at Oxbridge a century or so ago but the traditional training ground in the arts and humanities at Oxbridge was always classics or Greats. I studied History too at Warwick and fair to say a fair few of my contemporaries are lawyers, if they are not teaching History then law tends to be the next option down the list for Historians and more lucrative. Good to see you are using your degree in an interesting field, I now work in the world of archives, records management and information governance
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
I was in Stoke Newington last night at a wedding almost entirely ABs, all under 35s. I saw at least three Remain posters as well in people's windows.
Remain central.
Of my friends, two were very strongly Remain (and both got a bit huffy at me), one was a very reluctant Remainer, another *still* on the fence, but very impressed by Andrea Leadsom, and one switcher to Leave. A couple had read my blog (and seriously thought about Leave) but decided Remain on balance. No-one was effusive about the EU.
Interestingly, almost everyone's parents are Leave.
I don't know what that means. But I don't think Remain is collapsing in London - they will get a very good vote there - but they might not all turn out.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to them
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuries
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!
English was certainly only introduced at Oxbridge a century or so ago but the traditional training ground in the arts and humanities at Oxbridge was always classics or Greats. I studied History too at Warwick and fair to say a fair few of my contemporaries are lawyers, if they are not teaching History then law tends to be the next option down the list for Historians and more lucrative. Good to see you are using your degree in an interesting field, I now work in the world of archives, records management and information governance
I remember telling a German friend of mine that I might want to go into politics at some level - she couldn't understand why I wasn't doing a PhD. Apparently this is a thing in Germany political culture...
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadan
Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East
Yet, they are not. They are focusing on London/NI/Scotland. Leave are still pushing hard in Surrey and parts of Hampshire.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.
The point is that we do not have to exclusively negotiate with the EU.
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
You could have told him people want to have control over just how many "New Citizens" we admit each year.
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.
We've moved the former most of the way there.
We could also persuade the locals to breed as well. You never know it might catch on.
From what I see around here the locals have no restraints on breeding. In the doctor's waiting room, the Co-op and around the village generally I see plenty of, mainly fat, young women with two or more children in tow. Most of them are single mothers, living on benefits and, of those I chat to whilst waiting in the queue, most are educationally challenged to say the least.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadan
Not saying there is, just that it's not a priority. Thats all.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
I saw a Leave poster yesterday and have seen leafleters from Remain and had leaflets from both sides. The big rush to register before the deadline I think shows people are really recognising how important this vote is and how close it is, tight elections almost always get high turnouts eg the highest turnout we have had for a general election since 1997 was 2015, 1992 was the highest turnout since February 1974 which was also a tight election etc. The independence referendum in Scotland also had a very high turnout
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.
The point is that we do not have to exclusively negotiate with the EU.
Us getting other deals will benefit us anyway.
True but we we can mostly do those things already. We don't sell more Malaysian made Dyson vacuum cleaners to Russia just because we sell fewer insurance products to France. The upshot is that we sell less to the EU and we sell less overall - affecting the economy, employment etc. Which is why I think we will go for the EEA.
Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man. EU ref came up. He was very dismissive of my warnings about 'covering himself' on Leave, and has just gone in even deeper with another £20k. He's convinced it'll be 56:44 to Remain.
Do you know, this annoys the fuck out of me. To arrive at my present betting position[1] I did the following
* Got Gallup's 1975 polls, "The 1975 referendum" and "Full-hearted consent" from the library via inter-library loans. (The books are great btw) * Checked the prediction errors for the polls for about seven previous referenda on EU and UK (they are shocking btw) * Carefully saved about £250 pcm for about three months (it would have been more but I had some unexpected expenses) * Placed a bet on the London Mayoral in a physical betting shop to overcome fear and create a muscle memory
That's about six months of full-on work. And along comes Mr Dickless Bank Director and throws away £20K on the wrong result because his gut says so
Rich people don't deserve money, they really dont...
[1] £500pcm@5/2 and £250pcm@4/2 on LEAVE. I may have mentioned it.
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
I'm concerned that people like you are so easily brainwashed.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadan
Not saying there is, just that it's not a priority. Thats all.
Well it is not the priority in a religious festival no but that does not mean you cannot take 5 minutes out of the day to put a cross on a ballot paper
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.
In due course we will see who is right. Personally I hope I'm wrong. You, however, obviously don't care.
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
I'm concerned that people like you are so easily brainwashed.
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
Mr. Fenman, You paint an economic apocalypse which you believe will happen. I have also thought about what might happen, best case, middle case and worst case, and I cannot share your belief or even think it a reasonable scenario.
You might,as a starter, want to think through what you mean by "excluded from the single market". If you mean that the countries in the EU would refuse to trade with us, refuse to sell us their goods and services and refuse to buy ours, then I fear you are very wide of the mark.
I see football fans from across Europe are taking the chance to sample the delights of the south of France at this time of year & fully embracing the cafe culture!!!!!
EU will be praying that England votes to leave after another 2 weeks of riots
England fans are no different from Hibernian supported. Apart from the former can pay for themselves.
Can go nowhere without disgracing the country and the gutter press have the temerity to call them British
Well it is not the priority in a religious festival no but that does not mean you cannot take 5 minutes out of the day to put a cross on a ballot paper
Islams view of gender-equality does not marry with the West's. Outwith Indonesia it is a sad fact but true.
Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East
Yet, they are not. They are focusing on London/NI/Scotland. Leave are still pushing hard in Surrey and parts of Hampshire.
Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man.
Ok, I understand:
But when did this anecdote occur? Call me simple but somehow it is not clear.....
Last night.
I have seen Remain campaigners in West Kent which is the more prosperous part of the county, they need to expand that elsewhere in the Home Counties. The Medway Towns will be strongly for Leave as will areas like Portsmouth and most of the villages, Remain need to target prosperous commuter towns like Sevenoaks, Horsham, Reading and Guildford as well the graduate filled cities of Brighton and Oxford
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again. I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.
In due course we will see who is right. Personally I hope I'm wrong. You, however, obviously don't care.
No I just think your analysis is based on fantasy and is as likely as the claims of Brexit causing WW3
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.
Exactly - there's nothing wrong with having to adopt single market law and regulations if you're in that single market. But the EU is much more than the single market (and is increasingly expanding into other areas) and its all that additional political union stuff we'd be relieving ourselves of by Leaving.
From what I see around here the locals have no restraints on breeding. In the doctor's waiting room, the Co-op and around the village generally I see plenty of, mainly fat, young women with two or more children in tow. Most of them are single mothers, living on benefits and, of those I chat to whilst waiting in the queue, most are educationally challenged to say the least.
To be blunt we need quality not just quantity.
The Danes are a bit worried but they're working on it:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.
The EU institutions decide and we implement those decisions. There is no veto. There is a mechanism for conveying an opinion, which is not likely to be weighed particularly heavily by the EC Council or Parliament.
Agree that the scope of the EEA is smaller than the EU , but is still extensive, incorporating in Article 1 of the agreement the following:
(a) the free movement of goods; (b) the free movement of persons; (c) the free movement of services; (d) the free movement of capital; (e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the rules thereon are equally respected; as well as (f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the environment, education and social policy.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
and doing a crap job of it if my experience of trying to get bloody leaflets to deliver is anything to go by.
He could put anti-Remain sumbliminals into all those oddly hynotic JML gadget videos they have in hardware shops. 'Get rid of REMAINS and LEAVE filth behind with our handy electric mop!'
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?
Can go nowhere without disgracing the country and the gutter press have the temerity to call them British
To be fair:
They are English fans expressing a view on the EU-Ref. Not sure if the Welsh nor Ulster-Jocks would be as bold. The Scots could have but they failed to make the grade.
Comments
But of course he isn't slow to ask the UK to contribute to a mess of Germany's making.
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016
I wish more people read those, life would be much more interesting, and conceivably, more civil.
Like most people, I'm torn on immigration; there are pros and cons, but someone like me (I just scrape in as a HNWI) get pretty much all the pros, whereas my nephews (WWC in the trades) get the cons. However, I think it's lazy leadership to just fold one's arms and say, 'open, globalised economy, dear old thing, nothing to be done'.
It didn't used to be like this. I never even considered our system was bent or open to abuse until about 10yrs ago. It totally erodes trust and confidence in the result.
Some wag on Twitter last night joked that after the ORB poll, the registration website would stay open until polling day...
Further, is point out The decisions are by Uk courts and reference the EHCR. nevertheless, we have a much broader interpretation than do, for example, the French.
Assuming some need for skilled immigration from elsewhere, including the EU, tens of thousands is not achievable (even if we stretched it to 99,000).
On a related question, which you may know the answer to, is it legal for one person to vote in two separate local elections on the same date? In other words could my hypothetical student vote in a local election at home on the same date as voting in a local election at their college location. I'm guessing it would be legal as the two are separate elections, but it doesn't feel quite right.
Miss Plato, is there a way for those votes to be rendered void? Otherwise it seems to be wide open to fraud. It's a disgrace.
But when did this anecdote occur? Call me simple but somehow it is not clear.....
I can't manage to read newspaper articles when I'm urgh - takes too much effort/focus - I jump straight to the comments and rely on others who have!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_subjects_of_Russia
Beat me too it! Why do we talk about citizenship tests - surely they should be subjectship tests...
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
For all the talk of European harmony and all that lofty ambition, he is German pure and simple. Had Blair been half as interested in Britain as Schauble is in Germany we would never have given away so much of our rebate with nothing to show for it.
We could also persuade the locals to breed as well. You never know it might catch on.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!
As in "Redwood v Deadwood"?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/if-he-wants-remain-to-prevail-eddie-izzard-needs-to-stay-out-of-the-eu-referendum-debate-a7074716.html
"If he wants Remain to prevail, Eddie Izzard needs to stay out of the EU referendum debate"
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Remind us Nick, how many Muslim majority countries are democracies?
Remain central.
Of my friends, two were very strongly Remain (and both got a bit huffy at me), one was a very reluctant Remainer, another *still* on the fence, but very impressed by Andrea Leadsom, and one switcher to Leave. A couple had read my blog (and seriously thought about Leave) but decided Remain on balance. No-one was effusive about the EU.
Interestingly, almost everyone's parents are Leave.
I don't know what that means. But I don't think Remain is collapsing in London - they will get a very good vote there - but they might not all turn out.
It does not inspire confidence in the integrity of the vote.
Us getting other deals will benefit us anyway.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
To be blunt we need quality not just quantity.
Why would we want to leave the EU for those cheating Commonwealth types.
Try!
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.
* Got Gallup's 1975 polls, "The 1975 referendum" and "Full-hearted consent" from the library via inter-library loans. (The books are great btw)
* Checked the prediction errors for the polls for about seven previous referenda on EU and UK (they are shocking btw)
* Carefully saved about £250 pcm for about three months (it would have been more but I had some unexpected expenses)
* Placed a bet on the London Mayoral in a physical betting shop to overcome fear and create a muscle memory
That's about six months of full-on work. And along comes Mr Dickless Bank Director and throws away £20K on the wrong result because his gut says so
Rich people don't deserve money, they really dont...
[1] £500pcm@5/2 and £250pcm@4/2 on LEAVE. I may have mentioned it.
Is there a time-delay...?
Opinium for The Observer and YouGov for The Sunday Times
The Opinium comes out around 5-7.30pmish and YouGov maybe around 10pm.
You might,as a starter, want to think through what you mean by "excluded from the single market". If you mean that the countries in the EU would refuse to trade with us, refuse to sell us their goods and services and refuse to buy ours, then I fear you are very wide of the mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g&ncid=newsletter-uk
Agree that the scope of the EEA is smaller than the EU , but is still extensive, incorporating in Article 1 of the agreement the following:
(a) the free movement of goods;
(b) the free movement of persons;
(c) the free movement of services;
(d) the free movement of capital;
(e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the rules thereon are equally respected; as well as
(f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the environment, education and social policy.
and LEAVE filth behind with our handy electric mop!'
They are English fans expressing a view on the EU-Ref. Not sure if the Welsh nor Ulster-Jocks would be as bold. The Scots could have but they failed to make the grade.