Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Austro-Hungarian parable

SystemSystem Posts: 11,723
edited June 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Austro-Hungarian parable

Austria-Hungary does not have a good press nowadays.  It is vaguely thought of as an autocratic dysfunctional empire whose demise was unmourned.  Lands that once formed a single empire that had been ruled by the Hapsburgs for centuries are now shared between a dozen independent countries.  No one clamours for it to be reconstituted.

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    FPT
    rcs1000 said:

    OK: I've just been listening to Macron.

    And, as far as he's concerned, a Norway or Swiss deal is quite possible with the UK post Brexit. With one caveat, he's looking after France's interests, and extending the Financial Services Passport to the UK post Brexit is off the table.

    He was pretty pragmatic, and pretty impressive, actually. Of course, he knew his audience (fund managers), and therefore talked the talk on labour market reform. But he made the point the sheer number of strikes indicates how seriously the unions in France are taking these changes. He said the current (bitterly opposed) reforms are "only the beginning".

    I'm afraid I didn't ask about a referendum in France. Nor did I ask if he was going to stand against Hollande to be the Socialist Presidential candidate.

    Ferfuxsake, you've just literally ruined my day.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    It really is getting quite worrying. I thought Remain has this in the bag four weeks back. Now it looks as if we might actually vote to leave, which would be a complete disaster for UK businesses, and the collateral damage could be horrible.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    What was geldof screaming at the fishermen from his gin palace?

    "Give us your money, just f##king give us your money"
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    I see we have the multi accounting fake back story problem again on pb.
  • Options
    BlueKenBlueKen Posts: 33
    Concern about Russian febrility is precisely why the EU will want to maintain a good relationship with the UK post-Brexit.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    Those who think Brexit will happen - and be an economic disaster - might like to take a bit of the William Hills 9/4 on the UK entering recession by the end of 2017...
  • Options
    I don't know much about the Austro-Hungarian parable but the map looks like a fish :o)
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,618
    Hungary 2-0 Austria :)
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
  • Options
    JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    'All value their independence but all want to share their sovereignty with their neighbours..'

    No. They all want to share their neighbours MONEY.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille ....

    That "if" requires you to trust the French.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698

    Those who think Brexit will happen - and be an economic disaster - might like to take a bit of the William Hills 9/4 on the UK entering recession by the end of 2017...

    Tipped it weeks ago
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    If it's EEA they don't have much choice, I imagine that the financial services passport would only be traded in return for massive restrictions in free movement. The government would never sign a deal otherwise and we'd just get on with building a new unregulated loneuro market outside of the single market.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    OK: I've just been listening to Macron.

    And, as far as he's concerned, a Norway or Swiss deal is quite possible with the UK post Brexit. With one caveat, he's looking after France's interests, and extending the Financial Services Passport to the UK post Brexit is off the table.

    He was pretty pragmatic, and pretty impressive, actually. Of course, he knew his audience (fund managers), and therefore talked the talk on labour market reform. But he made the point the sheer number of strikes indicates how seriously the unions in France are taking these changes. He said the current (bitterly opposed) reforms are "only the beginning".

    I'm afraid I didn't ask about a referendum in France. Nor did I ask if he was going to stand against Hollande to be the Socialist Presidential candidate.

    Ferfuxsake, you've just literally ruined my day.
    Aren't the financial services passporting provisions applicable to the EEA though?
  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    FPT

    As a hypothetical, if Cameron were to announce his future resignation before the referendum (he could say that he doesn't want such an important decision to be decided on a personal vote for him, and he is bowing out gracefully now to neutralise the issue of kicking him and osborne), would that help remain or leave?

    Maybe it's the only play remaining for BSE? A bit like when Gordon Brown announced he was resigning to help woo the LD's to Labour in 2010
  • Options
    GasmanGasman Posts: 132

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    I thought London did a fair bit of $ related trading, but we don't seem to have to be in a political union with the USA.

    And I don't see how things could get any worse anyway, given that I'm sure we were told London would cease to be a financial centre if we didn't join the Euro....
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    As it happens, I think the ending of Austria-Hungary was a pity. Their luck began to run out after the downfall of Metternich, their last talented statesman. The Czechs, Croats, etc. would have been better off sticking with the Empire.

    But, I don't think it holds much in the way of lessons for us.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    You'll feel better for voting Leave.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190

    Those who think Brexit will happen - and be an economic disaster - might like to take a bit of the William Hills 9/4 on the UK entering recession by the end of 2017...

    Tipped it weeks ago
    The atmosphere seems to have become somewhat more febrile in those weeks...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2016
    Alastair - you seem to have missed the obvious conclusion: Let independent nations remain just that, but build clubs where they can work together and help each other to mutual advantage. If the EU had decided it was going to be a club and we were a member (or an affiliate) I'd be heartily voting to Remain. But the EU has decided it wants to grow from being a club to becoming a country. A country I want no part of. Austria-Hungary could have been a super club. But its shitty elites wanted to control a country and it fell apart in violence and acrimony. Listen to the people.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,217
    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Yes, it will be a scrape over the line win for Remain if at all
  • Options
    Usual tosh this article. What holds countries together, ironically considering the author, is the rule of law and property rights. Also having some sort of work ethic helps. Japan and Germany were flattened but rebuilt quick enough; but elsewhere this is not the case. Countries without civil order become basket cases. Zimbabwe was once a near first world country for example. Sadly for E and C Europe they became the battle ground of major wars and afterwards had communism forcibly inflicted on them. No amount of national spirit can overcome that. Even Mr Meeks points out that Budapest happily was still a fast growing city AFTER the collapse of the Empire for nearly a decade. How that makes a case for REMAIN is beyond me, but still, bottom of the barrel rapidly approaching on that front.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302

    FPT

    As a hypothetical, if Cameron were to announce his future resignation before the referendum (he could say that he doesn't want such an important decision to be decided on a personal vote for him, and he is bowing out gracefully now to neutralise the issue of kicking him and osborne), would that help remain or leave?

    Maybe it's the only play remaining for BSE? A bit like when Gordon Brown announced he was resigning to help woo the LD's to Labour in 2010

    The risk for that is the meme I am seeing pushed on social media to labourites is vote remain because if you think Cameron is bad, any other tory is even worse.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    spoilt ballot?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille ....

    That "if" requires you to trust the French.

    Well history has shown the French do collaborate well with their opponents.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,282
    FPT:
    MTimT said:

    Estobar said:

    Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy. And everyone's geared up for Leave winning.

    The only sensible conclusion is that there will be some pain, followed by a period where growth will be approximately the same as it would have been if we stayed. Leaving the EU will not destroy the British economy any more than it will add rocket boosters.
    We have a huge debt overhang and a demographic problem once you strip out immigration. If Brexit doesn't cause immediate massive pain as we have a big correction, then it will simply consign us to decades of stagnation.

    It seems you are saying the only engine of economic growth available to the UK is immigration. What about getting productivity gains going again? I am no expert in this subject, but it seems obvious to me that importing migrants to fill ever more low skills jobs is a contributor to our lack of gains in productivity in recent years, as well as taxing infrastructure and welfare.

    Average wages do not go up without productivity gains - whatever the level of immigration. Using immigration as a crutch to underpin the top line GDP figure is a no win game in the long run. Far better to have targeted immigration to ensure a supply of skill sets that enable the economy to evolve into higher value added sectors with export potential, rather than trying to compete in low cost industries.
    I'm not really saying that - I'm saying that we are not in a great place to start.

    If you wind back to when Brown was in Downing Street, people thought his reelection would cause the markets to lose confidence in the UK Treasury. Osborne has, through luck or judgement, steadied the ship and many people are now confident to take an even bigger risk by voting for Brexit, but we still have major structural issues. The last 6 years suggest that fixing them over the medium term is realistic if things stay the same, but if they don't, we'll need to fix them more quickly, and that will involve real pain to real people.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,618

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille ....

    That "if" requires you to trust the French.

    Well history has shown the French do collaborate well with their opponents.
    Financial Passport-eating Surrender-Monkeys?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2016
    On topic: My wife once shared an office for a few weeks with a Habsburg prince. Things have come to a pretty pass when a Habsburg prince has to engage in gainful employment.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    You'll feel better for voting Leave.
    There'll be no lingering, remorseful feeling of "what might have been" if you vote Leave.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    MaxPB said:

    If it's EEA they don't have much choice, I imagine that the financial services passport would only be traded in return for massive restrictions in free movement. The government would never sign a deal otherwise and we'd just get on with building a new unregulated loneuro market outside of the single market.

    They don't have to accept us joining the EEA as a non-EU member, so they have every choice.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,070
    Most of my circle is strongly remain but one lady friend just told me she was going to vote leave but has now switched to remain. Apparently the vote leave advert on Radio 4 was almost fascist in her view so she changed her mind. She's the sort of person I would have guessed would have been remain all along though.
  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    I'd agree with your assessment of the Remain campaign, but if you vote leave you endorse their immigration scaremongering trumpesque campaign. If Leave win off the back of immigration, that is most certainly not going to help Labour in future, it's already their weakest area.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    Just wonder when will all the hyperbole and nonsense cease & we get down to the serious & factual argument of leave vs remain? I guess after we have seen the obamarama bounce in the polls right? Which will be shortly after Lord Lucan has been found?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,618

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    I'd agree with your assessment of the Remain campaign, but if you vote leave you endorse their immigration scaremongering trumpesque campaign. If Leave win off the back of immigration, that is most certainly not going to help Labour in future, it's already their weakest area.
    And REMAIN haven't indulged in scaremongering?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille ....

    That "if" requires you to trust the French.

    Well history has shown the French do collaborate well with their opponents.
    Deep down, at heart, you're still not really a fully signed-up Remainer are you?
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    edited June 2016
    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Hopefully this referendum has at least highlighted the concerns & feelings that have been ignored/over-ruled for so many years. Maybe some political party will find a way to meet their concerns and mitigate the adverse impacts that have given rise them.

    (edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    As expected...

    @MichaelLCrick: Farage friend says he's been approached by Boris camp about job in Johnson govt & place in Lords to avoid fighting possible Thanet by-elect
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    If it's EEA they don't have much choice, I imagine that the financial services passport would only be traded in return for massive restrictions in free movement. The government would never sign a deal otherwise and we'd just get on with building a new unregulated loneuro market outside of the single market.

    They don't have to accept us joining the EEA as a non-EU member, so they have every choice.
    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    edited June 2016

    FPT

    As a hypothetical, if Cameron were to announce his future resignation before the referendum (he could say that he doesn't want such an important decision to be decided on a personal vote for him, and he is bowing out gracefully now to neutralise the issue of kicking him and osborne), would that help remain or leave?

    Maybe it's the only play remaining for BSE? A bit like when Gordon Brown announced he was resigning to help woo the LD's to Labour in 2010

    The risk for that is the meme I am seeing pushed on social media to labourites is vote remain because if you think Cameron is bad, any other tory is even worse.
    Easily countered by an image of a sneering Osborne, thanking them for saving his bacon by voting Remain....

    "You want to be part of this? Really?"
  • Options
    LowlanderLowlander Posts: 941

    twitter.com/bernerlap/status/743064407618490372

    Remain have offered some fantastic images (undermining their campaign). We can now add Geldof on a Gin Palace giving working people the fingers to Eddie Izzard on Question Time with his torn, yet painted face.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    AnneJGP said:

    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Hopefully this referendum has at least highlighted the concerns & feelings that have been ignored/over-ruled for so many years. Maybe some political party will find a way to meet their concerns and mitigate the adverse impacts that have given rise them.

    (edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
    Are you on the mend yet?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,282
    Scott_P said:

    As expected...

    @MichaelLCrick: Farage friend says he's been approached by Boris camp about job in Johnson govt & place in Lords to avoid fighting possible Thanet by-elect

    Would he get the all-time record for the peer with the most rejections by the voters in a direct election?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,070
    Sean_F said:

    As it happens, I think the ending of Austria-Hungary was a pity. Their luck began to run out after the downfall of Metternich, their last talented statesman. The Czechs, Croats, etc. would have been better off sticking with the Empire.

    But, I don't think it holds much in the way of lessons for us.

    Maybe at the time. But in the long run I think it's best for nations to be self-governing. The Irish and the British get on a lot better now.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    I'd agree with your assessment of the Remain campaign, but if you vote leave you endorse their immigration scaremongering trumpesque campaign. If Leave win off the back of immigration, that is most certainly not going to help Labour in future, it's already their weakest area.
    Surely if Leave neutralises immigration as am issue then it puts Labour in a stronger position going forwards? I'm not saying leave would do that, but remain certainly won't.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,519
    Today is the last throw of the dice by Remain. Can Osborne swing the discussion back to the economy and public finances? I would be surprised if he had no effect, he usually does.

    Austria Hungary was an undemocratic oligarchic empire where people of no obvious talent thought they had the right to live a life of luxury on the backs of others because they were simply better. I can see the analogy with the EU right enough but why we should volunteer to remain subservient rather escapes me.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    Can I say that at the moment the E.U commisioners agree with the rights for workers etc right? And we can't ever see that changing? but what if we had a majority of commisioners who wanted to get rid of those protections? What could we actually do about it? Atleast you could campaign and vote out a tory government. Surely it must come down to this simple argument in the end. Whilst you might like Osborne over Gove or Boris the fact is we can get rid of Gove in FOUR years whereas if we stay we have no say over the fat cats in Brussels.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    DavidL said:

    Today is the last throw of the dice by Remain. Can Osborne swing the discussion back to the economy and public finances? I would be surprised if he had no effect, he usually does.

    Austria Hungary was an undemocratic oligarchic empire where people of no obvious talent thought they had the right to live a life of luxury on the backs of others because they were simply better. I can see the analogy with the EU right enough but why we should volunteer to remain subservient rather escapes me.

    Its the Meeks/Roger/Tyson view of the world!
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    I'd agree with your assessment of the Remain campaign, but if you vote leave you endorse their immigration scaremongering trumpesque campaign. If Leave win off the back of immigration, that is most certainly not going to help Labour in future, it's already their weakest area.
    If Leave win off the back of immigration, then it could most definitely help Labour in future - if they shook out their brains & started thinking about the people they purport to represent.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,217
    AnneJGP said:

    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Hopefully this referendum has at least highlighted the concerns & feelings that have been ignored/over-ruled for so many years. Maybe some political party will find a way to meet their concerns and mitigate the adverse impacts that have given rise them.

    (edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
    UKIP
  • Options
    LowlanderLowlander Posts: 941
    Could the EU not also be shown to have handed Turkey a blank cheque?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,618
    Lowlander said:

    twitter.com/bernerlap/status/743064407618490372

    Remain have offered some fantastic images (undermining their campaign). We can now add Geldof on a Gin Palace giving working people the fingers to Eddie Izzard on Question Time with his torn, yet painted face.
    https://twitter.com/ukpoliticsnet/status/743067412015255553
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,533
    edited June 2016
    Gasman said:

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    I thought London did a fair bit of $ related trading, but we don't seem to have to be in a political union with the USA.

    And I don't see how things could get any worse anyway, given that I'm sure we were told London would cease to be a financial centre if we didn't join the Euro....
    You do not understand where the impact would be if we left the EU and/or joined the EEA/EFTA.

    But sadly I must dash so don't have the time to explain it.

    Edit: sadly for the badinage this site is so adored for; happily for every other poster. And me.

    Here's some light reading to be getting on with. Be careful, not for the faint-hearted.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,035
    I sentimentally mourn Austria-Hungary. The Radetzky March is one of my all-time favorite novels.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Isn't it the additional rate Osborne has questioned?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Can someone tells me where, when and how this huge hole in the budget happens? Serious question, I can't be bothered to read long documents to find out myself.

    But it strike me as not really being a priori bound to happen. What will change in the first year after Brexit is announced. Some uncertainty is reduced, other uncertainty that already exists comes into sharper focus. Otherwise, I trading status does not change much for two years on most people's reckoning.

    So where is this huge hit coming from and when? Is it coming solely from the much predicted economic correction/recession/crash reducing revenues? From some lost revenue source that being in the EU magically bestows on us? From increased costs caused by leaving?

    I am genuinely at a loss as to how it gets to 30bn GBP. Say our economy is 2 trillion for round sums. We have a hit of 2%, so 40bn is lost to GDP. Say taxation of this is 20%, revenues are down 8bn. How do we get to 30bn?

    Genuine attempts at enlightenment welcomed.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,519

    On topic: My wife once shared an office for a few weeks with a Habsburg prince. Things have come to a pretty pass when a Habsburg prince has to engage in gainful employment.

    And share an office! Can EU Commissioners imagine falling so far? I doubt it.

    Good to have you back by the way.
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    MaxPB said:

    If it's EEA they don't have much choice, I imagine that the financial services passport would only be traded in return for massive restrictions in free movement. The government would never sign a deal otherwise and we'd just get on with building a new unregulated loneuro market outside of the single market.

    They don't have to accept us joining the EEA as a non-EU member, so they have every choice.
    We are already in the EEA , the question is whether they can eject us forcefully from it. The answer to that is probably no, because when Austria went in the opposite direction, the EEA agreement members table was not altered for 8 years, proving that there is no operational difference between EFTA and EU membership for the operation of the EEA agreement. It was simply a matter of issuing a protocol to the Agreement to move Austria from one side of the table of members to the other

    Beyond this, it should be noted that the EEA has the emergency brake mechanism for the four freedoms which have been used before - by both Iceland and Lichtenstein. IN the end, the EU could not pressure Lichtenstein and their concession was made permanent. As the commission has in its deal with Cameron already acknowledged that we are in a state of 'social emergency' then there will be no article 114 EEA issues to rebalance - as using the brake itself will be the balancing action for the UK.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited June 2016
    Lowlander said:

    twitter.com/bernerlap/status/743064407618490372

    Remain have offered some fantastic images (undermining their campaign). We can now add Geldof on a Gin Palace giving working people the fingers to Eddie Izzard on Question Time with his torn, yet painted face.
    While all those under 30 are scratching their head going who are these two washed up middle aged men who have terrible fashion sense...are they famous or something?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    nunu said:

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    Can I say that at the moment the E.U commisioners agree with the rights for workers etc right? And we can't ever see that changing? but what if we had a majority of commisioners who wanted to get rid of those protections? What could we actually do about it? Atleast you could campaign and vote out a tory government. Surely it must come down to this simple argument in the end. Whilst you might like Osborne over Gove or Boris the fact is we can get rid of Gove in FOUR years whereas if we stay we have no say over the fat cats in Brussels.
    What did the EU do to protect UK workers over, say, zero hours contracts?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    fpt @ williamglenn. Thanks for addressing my question.

    No gain without pain. Personally, I find the short sharp shock resulting in a move to new habits easier than sustained discipline. So, it seems, do countries. Witness Japan and France, vs UK and Germany.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,843
    There is another interesting parallel between Austria and the EU which may be detrimental to the latter. The point of the Austrian empire from the view of other European powers was to be bulwark against the Ottoman Turks. Every time the question came up about what to do about Austria it was left alone so it could carry on that role. At the point the Ottoman empire finished so did the Austrian one.

    The EU was created as an antidote to fascism and communism and to reinforce liberalism in Europe. Maybe those purposes are seen as superfluous now?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013

    Sean_F said:

    As it happens, I think the ending of Austria-Hungary was a pity. Their luck began to run out after the downfall of Metternich, their last talented statesman. The Czechs, Croats, etc. would have been better off sticking with the Empire.

    But, I don't think it holds much in the way of lessons for us.

    Maybe at the time. But in the long run I think it's best for nations to be self-governing. The Irish and the British get on a lot better now.
    True in general, although central Europe was engulfed by a perfect storm after 1939.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,618
    edited June 2016
    FF43 said:

    There is another interesting parallel between Austria and the EU which may be detrimental to the latter. The point of the Austrian empire from the view of other European powers was to be bulwark against the Ottoman Turks. Every time the question came up about what to do about Austria it was left alone so it could carry on that role. At the point the Ottoman empire finished so did the Austrian one.

    The EU was created as an antidote to fascism and communism and to reinforce liberalism in Europe. Maybe those purposes are seen as superfluous now?

    Austria and Turkey were allies from 1914-1918!
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Inevitably you foresee the most harmful outcome, but I think that's unlikely. It's not going to be such a resounding success for Leave that MPs will abandon the general rule of as little change as possible.
  • Options
    DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    We have a bit of polling now for different regions (Scotland, Wales, NI and London). I suspect this could tell us a bit more than national polling does. Has anyone worked out if these regional polls are looking good or bad for either side?
  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    AnneJGP said:

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    I'd agree with your assessment of the Remain campaign, but if you vote leave you endorse their immigration scaremongering trumpesque campaign. If Leave win off the back of immigration, that is most certainly not going to help Labour in future, it's already their weakest area.
    If Leave win off the back of immigration, then it could most definitely help Labour in future - if they shook out their brains & started thinking about the people they purport to represent.
    Maybe, but they'd lose a big chunk of their middle class youth vote to greens and lib dems - and with FPTP that could be enough to deny them plenty of seats to tories or ukip.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT:
    MTimT said:

    Genuine attempts at enlightenment welcomed.

    I wondered the same, especially as the Chairman of Britain Stronger In Europe is on the record as saying "Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change". He isn't a nobody either, as executive chairman of Marks and Spencer a world wide business with 80,000 employees.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,843

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    The template for that, I think, would be the Korean FTA but with a broader range of sectors. The Koreans got a relatively unfavourable deal, which of itself makes it more likely the EU would agree to something similar with the UK
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    I think that's fair, but I don't think it would be a disaster, we survived US attempts to repatriate USD trade, I'm certain we'll do the same for the EU trying to repatriate EUR trade. There are advantages to being an unregulated market, we may lose in some areas but gain in others.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,519

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    MTimT said:

    Can someone tells me where, when and how this huge hole in the budget happens? Serious question, I can't be bothered to read long documents to find out myself.

    But it strike me as not really being a priori bound to happen. What will change in the first year after Brexit is announced. Some uncertainty is reduced, other uncertainty that already exists comes into sharper focus. Otherwise, I trading status does not change much for two years on most people's reckoning.

    So where is this huge hit coming from and when? Is it coming solely from the much predicted economic correction/recession/crash reducing revenues? From some lost revenue source that being in the EU magically bestows on us? From increased costs caused by leaving?

    I am genuinely at a loss as to how it gets to 30bn GBP. Say our economy is 2 trillion for round sums. We have a hit of 2%, so 40bn is lost to GDP. Say taxation of this is 20%, revenues are down 8bn. How do we get to 30bn?

    Genuine attempts at enlightenment welcomed.

    The hit comes from the economic downturn, which as always hits both tax receipts and increases welfare spending. The magnitude is hard to predict, of course, but £30bn is certainly plausible: the hit following the 2008/9 disruption peaked at over £100bn.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    AnneJGP said:

    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Hopefully this referendum has at least highlighted the concerns & feelings that have been ignored/over-ruled for so many years. Maybe some political party will find a way to meet their concerns and mitigate the adverse impacts that have given rise them.

    (edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
    Are you on the mend yet?
    Thank you for asking, yes. Past the most contagious phase & feeling a bit better. Still sleeping a lot!
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Gasman said:

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    I thought London did a fair bit of $ related trading, but we don't seem to have to be in a political union with the USA.

    And I don't see how things could get any worse anyway, given that I'm sure we were told London would cease to be a financial centre if we didn't join the Euro....
    And the status quo will not continue. The EZ will always want to regulate the City and eventually they will prevail. Frankfurt will always want to steal its business, so it competition either way.

    Obviously Brexit will bring change to the City. Some business lines will be lost, freer regulations will open up others. Ever was it thus.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,739
    Scott_P said:

    As expected...

    @MichaelLCrick: Farage friend says he's been approached by Boris camp about job in Johnson govt & place in Lords to avoid fighting possible Thanet by-elect

    Vote Leave and get Boris as PM and Lord Farage of Thanet as a Minister.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Jobabob said:

    @HYFUD FPT

    Quite right – the strategy should be to win hearts and minds of wavering middle class voters. I think the WWC vote is gone, sadly. Very regrettable but there it is.

    Hopefully this referendum has at least highlighted the concerns & feelings that have been ignored/over-ruled for so many years. Maybe some political party will find a way to meet their concerns and mitigate the adverse impacts that have given rise them.

    (edited to add: good afternoon, everyone)
    Are you on the mend yet?
    Thank you for asking, yes. Past the most contagious phase & feeling a bit better. Still sleeping a lot!
    Good to hear.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Gasman said:

    Honestly if that attitude of la grenouille is reflective of the whole of the EU, then the UK Financial Services Industry is going to be buggered senseless, ditto the country's finances as the revenues from the financial services industry dries up.

    Ozzy might have been lowballing the £30 bn figure in light of that.

    I thought London did a fair bit of $ related trading, but we don't seem to have to be in a political union with the USA.

    And I don't see how things could get any worse anyway, given that I'm sure we were told London would cease to be a financial centre if we didn't join the Euro....
    It's strange.

    They kept threatening to do London over even befor Brexit became a possibility.

    Nothing is certain even if we stay in.

    The E.U. is not exactly being run for our benefit now is it.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    The UK car industry, to mention just one. We're hardly going to cut off that nose to spite our face.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    MaxPB said:

    I think that's fair, but I don't think it would be a disaster, we survived US attempts to repatriate USD trade, I'm certain we'll do the same for the EU trying to repatriate EUR trade. There are advantages to being an unregulated market, we may lose in some areas but gain in others.

    That might be true in the longer term (very hard to say), but it would still very disruptive in the short term.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    Nothing to do with logic, we just don't seem to have anyone capable of negotiating.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,843
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    It won't be quite as black and white as that. There will be some things about services (favouring us) but less than about manufacturing goods (favouring them). Both sides want a deal but we want it more. Also they are in control of both the process and the timetable. They have the stronger negotiating power and the eventual deal will reflect that. It doesn't mean it's a bad deal. It simply reflects the change in our positions once the UK leaves the EU
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    I also think that the EU wouldn't want to help create a huge unregulated market on its doorstep, but I think initially the EU will be unwilling to give up the financial passport, and if they wait to long we may not want to accept it and the regulatory burden it carries.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,384
    DavidL said:

    Today is the last throw of the dice by Remain. Can Osborne swing the discussion back to the economy and public finances? I would be surprised if he had no effect, he usually does.

    Austria Hungary was an undemocratic oligarchic empire where people of no obvious talent thought they had the right to live a life of luxury on the backs of others because they were simply better. I can see the analogy with the EU right enough but why we should volunteer to remain subservient rather escapes me.

    Which were the democratic, egalitarian empires again?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    nunu said:

    Danny565 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT

    Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.

    Well you have answered your own question. You vote on what's best for the country. Both campaigns have been very brutal. But the decision is not about the campaigns.
    But the thing is I'm only marginally in favour of staying in the EU - whereas I really strongly detest the "Remain" campaign. They're using classic right-wing fear tactics that have ALWAYS been used in the past against left-wing causes (not least in the 2015 election), and which they will use even more in future if they're successful this time. "Don't rock the boat and try changing things." "We're dependent on rich multinational businessmen so we have to vote as they say." "'Economic reality' means you're stupid for even thinking that could be better than they are now." All of these were arguments used against every 'left-wing' or Labour breakthrough in the past 100 years.

    I just don't feel comfortable encouraging a campaign playbook which, if successful, will be used to defeat my point of view on issues which I care MUCH more about than staying in the EU.
    Can I say that at the moment the E.U commisioners agree with the rights for workers etc right? And we can't ever see that changing? but what if we had a majority of commisioners who wanted to get rid of those protections? What could we actually do about it? Atleast you could campaign and vote out a tory government. Surely it must come down to this simple argument in the end. Whilst you might like Osborne over Gove or Boris the fact is we can get rid of Gove in FOUR years whereas if we stay we have no say over the fat cats in Brussels.
    You'd have been interested by the Labour Leave in Luton meeting I went to last night. The speakers (Kelvin Hopkins and Douglas Nicholls) argued that the EU prioritises the interests of big business over workers; that free movement of people acts against workers; that trade unions in Greece, Spain, and Portugal have been emasculated as a result of the bailouts; and that trade unions have lost out in certain key decisions from the ECJ.

    Then, they argued that sooner or later the UK will elect a left wing government, which (outside of the EU) would have the freedom to do left wing things, like renationalising railways and providing state aid to industry.

    There was rather more common ground with the 'Kippers present over matters of democracy and sovereignty.

  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    MaxPB said:

    If it's EEA they don't have much choice, I imagine that the financial services passport would only be traded in return for massive restrictions in free movement. The government would never sign a deal otherwise and we'd just get on with building a new unregulated loneuro market outside of the single market.

    They don't have to accept us joining the EEA as a non-EU member, so they have every choice.
    They do if we are an EFTA member though. So we arrange to join that first.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    I think that's fair, but I don't think it would be a disaster, we survived US attempts to repatriate USD trade, I'm certain we'll do the same for the EU trying to repatriate EUR trade. There are advantages to being an unregulated market, we may lose in some areas but gain in others.

    That might be true in the longer term (very hard to say), but it would still very disruptive in the short term.
    Yes and no, as always one man's uncertainty is another man's opportunity. Especially where the City is concerned.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Sean_F said:

    As it happens, I think the ending of Austria-Hungary was a pity. Their luck began to run out after the downfall of Metternich, their last talented statesman. The Czechs, Croats, etc. would have been better off sticking with the Empire.

    But, I don't think it holds much in the way of lessons for us.

    Maybe at the time. But in the long run I think it's best for nations to be self-governing. The Irish and the British get on a lot better now.

    Good fences make good neighbours.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    The UK car industry, to mention just one. We're hardly going to cut off that nose to spite our face.
    Then neither would the EU, given that the value of their goods exports to the UK were £120bn higher than the value of our goods exports to the EU.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,519

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    The UK car industry, to mention just one. We're hardly going to cut off that nose to spite our face.
    The British car industry could, at a push, sell cars to Britons. We import the thick end of 1m cars from the continent so if there are tariffs we have huge domestic demand for such products.

    But our strength is in services. Either they agree to us continuing to have access for services or we see how far those employment reforms in France work as they lay off tens of thousands.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,190

    DavidL said:

    Today is the last throw of the dice by Remain. Can Osborne swing the discussion back to the economy and public finances? I would be surprised if he had no effect, he usually does.

    Austria Hungary was an undemocratic oligarchic empire where people of no obvious talent thought they had the right to live a life of luxury on the backs of others because they were simply better. I can see the analogy with the EU right enough but why we should volunteer to remain subservient rather escapes me.

    Which were the democratic, egalitarian empires again?
    Ultimately, the British?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,519
    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Well of course, but Norway was mentioned which is in the EEA. As I said, the government would only give away a prize like passporting rights for mega concessions on free movement. They'd mad otherwise. We would be better going it alone and creating an unregulated EUR market in London if they tried to give us EEA with no passporting rights.

    Yes, agreed. An EEA-style deal but without financial passporting really would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Essentially I think the overall structure of Brexit is now clear. Because immigration has been the central argument of the Leave side, and certainly the one which has the greatest salience with voters, we can be very sure that we would end up with a realtively loose deal with the EU. In outline, I'd expect: Limited access to the Single Market, no tariffs on manufactured goods, compliance with EU product type approvals, probably streamlined customs paperwork (similar to the EEA 'movement certificate'), no freedom of movement, no financial passporting, no special deal on access to the Single Market in services, no protection for the City against Eurozone attempts to divert business their way.
    Why would we give the EU no tariffs on manufactured goods if we do not get equivalent access on services? What would be the logic that would have any British government agree to that?
    Nothing to do with logic, we just don't seem to have anyone capable of negotiating.
    It has undeniably been a problem but we cannot fix our policies on the assumption that all of our elected leaders are incapable of negotiating something in our interests.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Another reason for technology business to Brexit.

    In 2017, the EU is going to open the Unified Patent Court. This court will make it much easier for patent trolls and corporations in the US – armed with dodgy patent applications and IP attorneys – to reach into the UK and strangle your startup at birth. Think about it.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/15/patent_trolls_innovation_and_brexit/

This discussion has been closed.