Austria-Hungary had two advantages over the EU: 1) the monarchy as a unifying force and 2) experience of war with the Turks over hundreds of years. Europe has nothing comparable.
I would find it easier to stomach the EU if it were headed by a Habsburg. That's probably not a popular view though!
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.
Thanks, Richard. So unless you posit a hit of more than 2% to GDP, you are positing that welfare will have to increase by 22bn? It still strikes me that the 30bn is more at the worst case end of the spectrum of possibilities, with the meaty part of the bell curve more centered around the 10-15 billion.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
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?
That's a bit of a stretch. The British Empire always operated through local elites.
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.
The "Financial Passport" or at least the benefit it brings to London and the UK in terms of trade, employment and taxation will be lost on leaving the EU. It's gone. It's a cost of Brexit.
Whatever we decide for the post Brexit settlement will be exclusive of that.
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.
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?
That's a bit of a stretch. The British Empire always operated through local elites.
The question mark acknowledged it might be a bit of a stretch! Best I could come up with though....
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.
It's an integrated cross-border industry (in both directions). It's not a question of building cars in the UK from locally-sourced components and then exporting the finished cars. It's unthinkable that any UK government would want to disrupt that cross-border supply chain.
I really can't understand what people like Eddie Izzard and Bob Geldof think they're achieving. Were they planted by Leave a long time ago, to discredit their opponents?
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?
I think TSE is promising us one if he is elected. But yes, empires are generally not a good thing. The EU is probably not the worst but that doesn't make it a net positive either.
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.
Emphasis on the later part of "sooner or later" though. Not unrealistic to think that it could be 2030 before Labour gets in, if they lose badly at a 1983 level with Corbyn in 2020, and 2025 will be their "regaining lost ground" election. That's a long time for a leftwinger to wait for their policies to get enacted!
I really can't understand what people like Eddie Izzard and Bob Geldof think they're achieving. Were they planted by Leave a long time ago, to discredit their opponents?
I waican't t until Eddie Izzard devotes all his time & effort to being a politician....
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!
Quite right. I had forgotten that! All the more reason to get rid of the Austrian empire.
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 think Richard's going by the Dave renegotiation handbook.
Isn't it the additional rate Osborne has questioned?
Christ, I didn't see that, he is an even bigger idiot than I thought.
He is proposing to put an additional 2p on the higher rate of tax, that is to say raise the 45pct rate to 47pct. This would be the rate that he dropped from 50pct to 45pct because the government said it would raise more money that way. How many more free shots is he planning to hand the Labour Party today ?
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.
I'm hopeful that leaving the EU would (eventually) bring about a renaissance in the attitudes towards looking after our own interests. Not that I'm in favour of doing others down, but at least we need not always give away our bargaining chips for promises that never come good.
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 think Richard's going by the Dave renegotiation handbook.
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.
If you want a genuine left wing government in the future that's free to pursue its own social conscience then you should vote Leave. We've already been told that one of the benefits of the EU is that it mediates political change in member states (by Sturgeon, of all people).
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.
Hopefully @SouthamObserver is around to give us some context, this is his line of business.
It can't open without the UK's sign-off.
There will be no patent trolls because: 1. Parent issued in Europe are of much higher quality than those issued in the US. 2. The cost of litigating in Europe is much lower. 3. If you lose you pay the other side's costs
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.
The trouble is if we vote to leave we will have a Tory government that will do everything it can to defend the city. I'm sure they'll quite happily sacrifice other sectors in a desperate attempt to keep London as the financial capital of Europe.
I'm hopeful that leaving the EU would (eventually) bring about a renaissance in the attitudes towards looking after our own interests. Not that I'm in favour of doing others down, but at least we need not always give away our bargaining chips for promises that never come good.
We first need to define what our interests are. There is pitifully little discussion of this, even on the Brexit side.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
Tories confessing by proxy they overspent to keep Farage out of the HoC presumably.
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?
That's generally what free trade deals look like. Financial servies are generally very heavily regulated by their own jurisdictions. The EU is a bit exceptional in how far it's taken this - for example, there's nothing like financial passporting between US states. You literally have to go through 50 different state licensing processes, and pay fees and bonds to each different state.
Even if the EU leaders wanted to keep extending this to British companies it's hard to see their electorates letting them.
Thanks, Richard. So unless you posit a hit of more than 2% to GDP, you are positing that welfare will have to increase by 22bn? It still strikes me that the 30bn is more at the worst case end of the spectrum of possibilities, with the meaty part of the bell curve more centered around the 10-15 billion.
Very hard to say. No-one really knows is the answer - in some ways it's harder to predict the short-term hit (which arises from uncertainty) than the long-term effect of different trade scenarios, which at least you can try to model.
But £30bn is certainly not at the top of the range. A scenario where the downturn is as bad as 2008/9 is perfectly plausible, if Brexit triggers a political crisis here (which seems very likely) combined with pushing the Eurozone back into severe recession.
Thanks, Richard. So unless you posit a hit of more than 2% to GDP, you are positing that welfare will have to increase by 22bn? It still strikes me that the 30bn is more at the worst case end of the spectrum of possibilities, with the meaty part of the bell curve more centered around the 10-15 billion.
Very hard to say. No-one really knows is the answer - in some ways it's harder to predict the short-term hit (which arises from uncertainty) than the long-term effect of different trade scenarios, which at least you can try to model.
But £30bn is certainly not at the top of the range. A scenario where the downturn is as bad as 2008/9 is perfectly plausible, if Brexit triggers a political crisis here (which seems very likely) combined with pushing the Eurozone back into severe recession.
I'm hopeful that leaving the EU would (eventually) bring about a renaissance in the attitudes towards looking after our own interests. Not that I'm in favour of doing others down, but at least we need not always give away our bargaining chips for promises that never come good.
We first need to define what our interests are. There is pitifully little discussion of this, even on the Brexit side.
My true hopes vested in a Leave vote are that we will be FORCED to confront these issues, discuss them, reach resolutions on them, either by mutual consent or as the basis of a general election result. A vote to Remain is a vote to just glide along as before, imposing outcomes on a population deemed too damned irrational, too parochial, too Little Englander to be even worthy of having a say.
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.
The trouble is if we vote to leave we will have a Tory government that will do everything it can to defend the city. I'm sure they'll quite happily sacrifice other sectors in a desperate attempt to keep London as the financial capital of Europe.
There is no sacrifice. Ultimately both parties gain from free trade in both goods and services. They gain rather more than we do because of the trade imbalance but we can live with that albeit we would want to do better in the future.
What is just silly is saying well we will give away our strengths for, err, nothing and therefore we will have a very bad deal and therefore we will have a recession and therefore we will have to put up taxes and therefore we should vote in. To put it kindly, it doesn't have to be like that
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.
Want me to flip a coin for you ?
If you really can't decide, another option is to just spoil your ballot paper.
For example, vote for both Remain and Leave or write 'f-ck Juncker' on it.
If there are 100,000 spoilt ballots nationwide like that, and Remain just clinches it 50.3% to 49.7%, say, then even though Remain might have just won there's a latent registered majority for Leave (or at least anti-EU) there as well.
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.
Want me to flip a coin for you ?
If you really can't decide, another option is to just spoil your ballot paper.
For example, vote for both Remain and Leave or write 'f-ck Juncker' on it.
If there are 100,000 spoilt ballots nationwide like that, and Remain just clinches it 50.3% to 49.7%, say, then even though Remain might have just won there's a latent registered majority for Leave (or at least anti-EU) there as well.
I'd argue 'f-ck Juncker' had expressed a clear intent!
Interesting piece, Mr. Meeks. Not my period so can't comment too much on the specifics.
The internal strength of the EU is not unlike the internal strength of Zimbabwe. Ignoring the people and various democratic votes may work in the short term, but this, rather than some sort of pigheaded xenophobia, is precisely why the institution is unloved in the first place.
We're discussing the UK, and I'm quite confident we have a stable democracy. The only time we've (recently/ever? not sure) elected fascists was a couple of BNP MEPs when the political class had an utter tin ear for genuine migration concerns.
Rose-tinted spectacles apply to ex-girlfriends, pop songs of the 1960s and many other things. Some people even wear them when considering the USSR.
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.
Want me to flip a coin for you ?
If you really can't decide, another option is to just spoil your ballot paper.
For example, vote for both Remain and Leave or write 'f-ck Juncker' on it.
If there are 100,000 spoilt ballots nationwide like that, and Remain just clinches it 50.3% to 49.7%, say, then even though Remain might have just won there's a latent registered majority for Leave (or at least anti-EU) there as well.
I'd argue 'f-ck Juncker' had expressed a clear intent!
Why not write f**k Farage carefully inside the 'leave' box?
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.
Hopefully @SouthamObserver is around to give us some context, this is his line of business.
It can't open without the UK's sign-off.
There will be no patent trolls because: 1. Parent issued in Europe are of much higher quality than those issued in the US. 2. The cost of litigating in Europe is much lower. 3. If you lose you pay the other side's costs
1. Nope. The EU patent office often just waves the US patents through (it's complex and expensive to check them).
2. The UPC judgement done in any country of the EU will automatically apply to us in the UK, so WE would then have launch a court action to try and appeal it. Good luck being a start-up trying to do that.
3. The loser pays maybe 2/3 of the other sides costs typically. Anyway you would have to prove that you could pay the other side's costs as a small business before you launch your appeal, so again start ups are screwed.
The only time we've (recently/ever? not sure) elected fascists was a couple of BNP MEPs when the political class had an utter tin ear for genuine migration concerns.
The political class still has an utter tin ear for genuine migration concerns, that is largely what is driving the WWC voters to Leave in their thousands, that and a similar disdain for their patriotism (cf. Lady Nugee MP)
I am at a bit of a loss and hope the PB brains trust can help. I am told that in the event of a leave vote there will suddenly open up a £30bn black hole in the nation's accounts. However, nobody has said why.
I have a car that was made in Japan, I have a phone that comes from a Korean company. the wine at lunch came from New Zealand, I type on a keyboard that was made in China onto a computer that was assembled in the UK from parts that were manufactured in the Far East. Almost nothing in my life has anything to do with the EU, but I am asked to believe that if we vote to leave the world will some how change for the worse, overnight needing an emergency budget, a rise in income tax and the slashing of health, education and defence budgets.
I am as always open to reasoned arguments, so please tell me where this mighty black hole is going to come from. What is this economic shock that will hit the UK if its electors vote the way that the great and the good don't like?
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.
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.
.
There is no sacrifice. Ultimately both parties gain from free trade in both goods and services. They gain rather more than we do because of the trade imbalance but we can live with that albeit we would want to do better in the future.
What is just silly is saying well we will give away our strengths for, err, nothing and therefore we will have a very bad deal and therefore we will have a recession and therefore we will have to put up taxes and therefore we should vote in. To put it kindly, it doesn't have to be like that
We're already seeing this fuss about financial passports. Banks are already looking at relocating some of their activities outside the UK. If we want to stem free movement we'll have to give something in return. We can hardly say to the that we're going to keep all the things we like and get rid of the things we don't.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
Tories confessing by proxy they overspent to keep Farage out of the HoC presumably.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
Tories confessing by proxy they overspent to keep Farage out of the HoC presumably.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
Tories confessing by proxy they overspent to keep Farage out of the HoC presumably.
@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.
Possible Thanet by-election? Have I missed something?
Tories confessing by proxy they overspent to keep Farage out of the HoC presumably.
Ah.
Farage has denied this happened - so I'll withdraw it.
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?
If mocking the French was a boost to the economy, I'd be backing Leave.
I see the European Union as the best way for the UK to achieve dominion over France, by following the Waterloo model.
It still shows a sad lack of belief in the British character that we need others alongside us in order to best the French.
Cameron signed a bilateral defence treaty with them!
Which is why everyone needs to calm the f--k down a bit.
In the event of Brexit we will continue to have strong mutual interests in security and defence cooperation with the French, maritime trading links with the Netherlands, and a strong trade in manufacture goods and economic links with Germany.
I'm hopeful that leaving the EU would (eventually) bring about a renaissance in the attitudes towards looking after our own interests. Not that I'm in favour of doing others down, but at least we need not always give away our bargaining chips for promises that never come good.
We first need to define what our interests are. There is pitifully little discussion of this, even on the Brexit side.
Our interests lie in a Britain that is stable, prosperous, peaceful, democratic, and fair. Next question?
I am at a bit of a loss and hope the PB brains trust can help. I am told that in the event of a leave vote there will suddenly open up a £30bn black hole in the nation's accounts. However, nobody has said why.
I have a car that was made in Japan, I have a phone that comes from a Korean company. the wine at lunch came from New Zealand, I type on a keyboard that was made in China onto a computer that was assembled in the UK from parts that were manufactured in the Far East. Almost nothing in my life has anything to do with the EU, but I am asked to believe that if we vote to leave the world will some how change for the worse, overnight needing an emergency budget, a rise in income tax and the slashing of health, education and defence budgets.
I am as always open to reasoned arguments, so please tell me where this mighty black hole is going to come from. What is this economic shock that will hit the UK if its electors vote the way that the great and the good don't like?
I haven't read the IFS research behind that claim but it is plausible to me for short term disruption due to uncertainty and longer term lower investment. The short term upheaval is likely to be political as much as economic, especially as no-one seems to know what they are doing. But political crises tend to feed into economic ones. People stop until things become clearer leading to cash flowing less easily through the system.
Longer term the issue is with investment, which is competitive. People invest where they get get the most benefit, not just for a return. If there is a benefit in being based in a place which is better plugged in to market opportunities, has a stronger supplier base, serves a bigger market or has fewer barriers to trade, that place will get the investment rather than somewhere else with fewer of these things. So your Japanese or American investor might say, 50 million in the UK or 500 million in the EU, we'll go for that, even before looking at tariffs, product documentation requirements, different legal systems etc.
I'm hopeful that leaving the EU would (eventually) bring about a renaissance in the attitudes towards looking after our own interests. Not that I'm in favour of doing others down, but at least we need not always give away our bargaining chips for promises that never come good.
We first need to define what our interests are. There is pitifully little discussion of this, even on the Brexit side.
Our interests lie in a Britain that is stable, prosperous, peaceful, democratic, and fair. Next question?
This Osborne dominatix routine...what is the safe word so I can make it stop? I think it.might be corbyn, but i am concerned that might be the code word to go harder & faster...
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.
Hopefully @SouthamObserver is around to give us some context, this is his line of business.
It can't open without the UK's sign-off.
There will be no patent trolls because: 1. Parent issued in Europe are of much higher quality than those issued in the US. 2. The cost of litigating in Europe is much lower. 3. If you lose you pay the other side's costs
1. Nope. The EU patent office often just waves the US patents through (it's complex and expensive to check them).
2. The UPC judgement done in any country of the EU will automatically apply to us in the UK, so WE would then have launch a court action to try and appeal it. Good luck being a start-up trying to do that.
3. The loser pays maybe 2/3 of the other sides costs typically. Anyway you would have to prove that you could pay the other side's costs as a small business before you launch your appeal, so again start ups are screwed.
The EPO does not wave through US patents. That's just a matter of fact. There is, for example, a different standard of patentability in Europe to the US.
If you lose a case you will not have lost a case to a dodgy patent. You will have lost to one that has first been examined by the EPO and then, once again, during the court proceedings. I am afraid that if you are found to have infringed there is a price to pay. However, that has nothing to do with patent trolls.
Patent trolls make their money by asserting low quality patents and asking for licensing fees that are below the amount it would take to fight a case. They essentially exploit the cost of litigating in the US and the system's many failings in terms of pleading requirements, forum selection and so on. They count on people figuring that it's easier to settle than it is to go to court. Even if a troll loses in court (and very few actually go that far), they do not have to bear any of the costs of the other side. So, a defendant is always looking at paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars whatever happens. If the offer to settle is tens of thousands, then that is an option that may very reluctantly take. In any case, there has been recent legislation and a number of decisons that have substantially reduced the incentives to be a troll in the US.
None of the things that make trolling an option in the US apply in Europe.
Whatever happens, win or lose, we can now conclude that REMAIN has fought one of the most incompetent, blundering, imbecilic campaigns in all of British political history.
Going into this vote they had everything on their side, from the BBC to the BoE, the IMF to the IFS, the unions and the guardianista and the luvvies and big business and Richard bloody Branson and Barack bloody Obama. And they started with 25 point phone poll leads.
It was only a month ago that dribbling twits like Nabavi and Meeks were insisting that REMAIN was playing a brilliant game, and Mike SMITHSON laughed at LEAVE any chance he could.
What happened, guys? What happened to your campaign? How did it come to this? - LOSING, with a week to go.
Historians will study this debacle for decades, whoever wins.
Its he tory GE campaign 2010 (Osborne led) vs 2015 (Crosby led)...
Whatever happens, win or lose, we can now conclude that REMAIN has fought one of the most incompetent, blundering, imbecilic campaigns in all of British political history.
Going into this vote they had everything on their side, from the BBC to the BoE, the IMF to the IFS, the unions and the guardianista and the luvvies and big business and Richard bloody Branson and Barack bloody Obama. And they started with 25 point phone poll leads.
It was only a month ago that dribbling twits like Nabavi and Meeks were insisting that REMAIN was playing a brilliant game, and Mike SMITHSON laughed at LEAVE any chance he could.
What happened, guys? What happened to your campaign? How did it come to this? - LOSING, with a week to go.
Historians will study this debacle for decades, whoever wins.
Take a look at the polls 12 months ago, and compare them with the polls today.
Yougov 6% lead for Remain, now 7% for Leave (after two changes in methodology that favour Remain).
ORB online 10% lead for Remain, now 10% lead for Leave.
Com Res phone 27% lead for Remain, now 1% lead for Remain.
ICM online 14% lead for Remain, now 5% lead for Leave (after a change in methodology to favour Remain) (ICM phone also have a 5% lead for Leave).
Ipsos Mori phone 44% lead for Remain, last month 18% lead for Remain (almost certainly tomorrow's numbers will show a further move to Leave).
DUP saying they will vote against Brexit budget. Thank you Osborne for winning this for Leave.
Now all he needs is for Nicola or Alex to say they would support it on the condition of a second IndyRef. If this was supposed to be Remain's big bazooka Osborne has done what that guy in Four Lions did and held it backwards to blow up his own side.
DUP saying they will vote against Brexit budget. Thank you Osborne for winning this for Leave.
Osborne is smart. He must know that the Punishment Budget is the most enormous risk. Which could backfire catastrophically. This tells me that the the government now expects to lose on June 23 - so it's worth trying ANYTHING
Bet accordingly.
this was my initial thought. It's a pretty desperate measure. If we have some kind of vow over the next few days from Juncker or anyone within the EU then I think we can be certain remain are in serious trouble.
It is interesting though that the betting markets didnt really shift this morning, maybe other people read the situation differently.
Dr. Prasannan, interesting. I think someone posted here a few months ago that the Spectator was hard to call because many of its people were Leave but Fraser was Remain.
Mr. Max, it's bizarre. In one day Osborne's signed his own political death warrant and we've got a multi-millionaire giving two fingers to fishermen worried about their livelihoods.
The speed with which the 57 signatures were produced suggests they were ready to go.
Mr. T, I agree. It's a desperate measure, for Remain these are desperate times.
And yet, I still think Remain has a very good chance of winning this. But it's far closer than it should've ever been.
DUP saying they will vote against Brexit budget. Thank you Osborne for winning this for Leave.
Osborne is smart. He must know that the Punishment Budget is the most enormous risk. Which could backfire catastrophically. This tells me that the the government now expects to lose on June 23 - so it's worth trying ANYTHING
Bet accordingly.
Exactly my thoughts this is their vow. "I vow to fuck ur wallet up if brexit". But it hasn't worked.
I don't think Leave have run a good campaign, but Remain have certainly run a bad one. I'd say the mistakes have been:-
1. Overselling a crappy deal at the end of February. That insulted peoples' intelligence.
2. One threat after another. At least, it seems to people as if they're being threatened and blackmailed to vote Remain.
3. The Obama visit. What could have been a positive for Remain (a US President who's popular here endorsing Remain) turned into a negative (the "back of the queue") comment.
4. A reliance on purely materialistic arguments in favour of the EU (GDP will be x% higher/lower) while failing to address emotional/idealistic arguments around self-government and sovereignty.
5. Inability to neutralise immigration as an issue.
The EPO does not wave through US patents. That's just a matter of fact. There is, for example, a different standard of patentability in Europe to the US.
If you lose a case you will not have lost a case to a dodgy patent. You will have lost to one that has first been examined by the EPO and then, once again, during the court proceedings. I am afraid that if you are found to have infringed there is a price to pay. However, that has nothing to do with patent trolls.
Patent trolls make their money by asserting low quality patents and asking for licensing fees that are below the amount it would take to fight a case. They essentially exploit the cost of litigating in the US and the system's many failings in terms of pleading requirements, forum selection and so on. They count on people figuring that it's easier to settle than it is to go to court. Even if a troll loses in court (and very few actually go that far), they do not have to bear any of the costs of the other side. So, a defendant is always looking at paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars whatever happens. If the offer to settle is tens of thousands, then that is an option that may very reluctantly take. In any case, there has been recent legislation and a number of decisons that have substantially reduced the incentives to be a troll in the US.
None of the things that make trolling an option in the US apply in Europe.
The whole point is that the regime will change after the EU UPC is brought in. Not how the rules apply today.
Mr Meeks asks us to compare the differences between the EU and Austria-Hungary. One is an undemocratic group of different peoples headed up by an unelected elite dominated by german speaking people. The other is a failed state that ended in 1918.
Comments
Austria-Hungary had two advantages over the EU: 1) the monarchy as a unifying force and 2) experience of war with the Turks over hundreds of years. Europe has nothing comparable.
I would find it easier to stomach the EU if it were headed by a Habsburg. That's probably not a popular view though!
https://twitter.com/blp_1995/status/743020948677398528?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Whatever we decide for the post Brexit settlement will be exclusive of that.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/743068947789021184
He is proposing to put an additional 2p on the higher rate of tax, that is to say raise the 45pct rate to 47pct. This would be the rate that he dropped from 50pct to 45pct because the government said it would raise more money that way. How many more free shots is he planning to hand the Labour Party today ?
There will be no patent trolls because:
1. Parent issued in Europe are of much higher quality than those issued in the US.
2. The cost of litigating in Europe is much lower.
3. If you lose you pay the other side's costs
Even if the EU leaders wanted to keep extending this to British companies it's hard to see their electorates letting them.
But £30bn is certainly not at the top of the range. A scenario where the downturn is as bad as 2008/9 is perfectly plausible, if Brexit triggers a political crisis here (which seems very likely) combined with pushing the Eurozone back into severe recession.
It just shows what the true heart of remain thinks of the working class of this country.
What is just silly is saying well we will give away our strengths for, err, nothing and therefore we will have a very bad deal and therefore we will have a recession and therefore we will have to put up taxes and therefore we should vote in. To put it kindly, it doesn't have to be like that
For example, vote for both Remain and Leave or write 'f-ck Juncker' on it.
If there are 100,000 spoilt ballots nationwide like that, and Remain just clinches it 50.3% to 49.7%, say, then even though Remain might have just won there's a latent registered majority for Leave (or at least anti-EU) there as well.
Interesting piece, Mr. Meeks. Not my period so can't comment too much on the specifics.
The internal strength of the EU is not unlike the internal strength of Zimbabwe. Ignoring the people and various democratic votes may work in the short term, but this, rather than some sort of pigheaded xenophobia, is precisely why the institution is unloved in the first place.
We're discussing the UK, and I'm quite confident we have a stable democracy. The only time we've (recently/ever? not sure) elected fascists was a couple of BNP MEPs when the political class had an utter tin ear for genuine migration concerns.
Rose-tinted spectacles apply to ex-girlfriends, pop songs of the 1960s and many other things. Some people even wear them when considering the USSR.
The fossil as Emperor...
Mayerling...
The assassination of the Empress...
More assassinations in the Balkans [the Obrenovićs, then Franz Ferdinand]...
Even Strauss's music is melancholy and wistful, like there was a premonition... "This can't last, so let's have a final waltz..."
2. The UPC judgement done in any country of the EU will automatically apply to us in the UK, so WE would then have launch a court action to try and appeal it. Good luck being a start-up trying to do that.
3. The loser pays maybe 2/3 of the other sides costs typically. Anyway you would have to prove that you could pay the other side's costs as a small business before you launch your appeal, so again start ups are screwed.
I see the European Union as the best way for the UK to achieve dominion over France, by following the Waterloo model.
How about "BREXIT", with the X carefully in the Remain box?
I have a car that was made in Japan, I have a phone that comes from a Korean company. the wine at lunch came from New Zealand, I type on a keyboard that was made in China onto a computer that was assembled in the UK from parts that were manufactured in the Far East. Almost nothing in my life has anything to do with the EU, but I am asked to believe that if we vote to leave the world will some how change for the worse, overnight needing an emergency budget, a rise in income tax and the slashing of health, education and defence budgets.
I am as always open to reasoned arguments, so please tell me where this mighty black hole is going to come from. What is this economic shock that will hit the UK if its electors vote the way that the great and the good don't like?
Not everything can be a Mers-el-Kébir or an Azincourt
Come on. Even I know that, and my modern history is rubbish.
Which is why everyone needs to calm the f--k down a bit.
In the event of Brexit we will continue to have strong mutual interests in security and defence cooperation with the French, maritime trading links with the Netherlands, and a strong trade in manufacture goods and economic links with Germany.
https://twitter.com/joerichlaw/status/743078423996825602
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/world-spectator-backs-brexit/
Azincourt is the French spelling.
This Brexit is turning into the Battle of Crécy.
Common Englishmen taking down the EU elite, with the power of thousands of bows votes.
Longer term the issue is with investment, which is competitive. People invest where they get get the most benefit, not just for a return. If there is a benefit in being based in a place which is better plugged in to market opportunities, has a stronger supplier base, serves a bigger market or has fewer barriers to trade, that place will get the investment rather than somewhere else with fewer of these things. So your Japanese or American investor might say, 50 million in the UK or 500 million in the EU, we'll go for that, even before looking at tariffs, product documentation requirements, different legal systems etc.
Pronouncing Azincourt correctly winds them up no end.
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/743081010095607809
Mr. T, quite. Leave hasn't been great but Remain's made some interestingly enormous mistakes.
The 'Little England' line was especially obvious.
No more drugs for TSE
If you lose a case you will not have lost a case to a dodgy patent. You will have lost to one that has first been examined by the EPO and then, once again, during the court proceedings. I am afraid that if you are found to have infringed there is a price to pay. However, that has nothing to do with patent trolls.
Patent trolls make their money by asserting low quality patents and asking for licensing fees that are below the amount it would take to fight a case. They essentially exploit the cost of litigating in the US and the system's many failings in terms of pleading requirements, forum selection and so on. They count on people figuring that it's easier to settle than it is to go to court. Even if a troll loses in court (and very few actually go that far), they do not have to bear any of the costs of the other side. So, a defendant is always looking at paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars whatever happens. If the offer to settle is tens of thousands, then that is an option that may very reluctantly take. In any case, there has been recent legislation and a number of decisons that have substantially reduced the incentives to be a troll in the US.
None of the things that make trolling an option in the US apply in Europe.
Yougov 6% lead for Remain, now 7% for Leave (after two changes in methodology that favour Remain).
ORB online 10% lead for Remain, now 10% lead for Leave.
Com Res phone 27% lead for Remain, now 1% lead for Remain.
ICM online 14% lead for Remain, now 5% lead for Leave (after a change in methodology to favour Remain) (ICM phone also have a 5% lead for Leave).
Ipsos Mori phone 44% lead for Remain, last month 18% lead for Remain (almost certainly tomorrow's numbers will show a further move to Leave).
It is interesting though that the betting markets didnt really shift this morning, maybe other people read the situation differently.
Mr. Max, it's bizarre. In one day Osborne's signed his own political death warrant and we've got a multi-millionaire giving two fingers to fishermen worried about their livelihoods.
The speed with which the 57 signatures were produced suggests they were ready to go.
Mr. T, I agree. It's a desperate measure, for Remain these are desperate times.
And yet, I still think Remain has a very good chance of winning this. But it's far closer than it should've ever been.
I don't think Leave have run a good campaign, but Remain have certainly run a bad one. I'd say the mistakes have been:-
1. Overselling a crappy deal at the end of February. That insulted peoples' intelligence.
2. One threat after another. At least, it seems to people as if they're being threatened and blackmailed to vote Remain.
3. The Obama visit. What could have been a positive for Remain (a US President who's popular here endorsing Remain) turned into a negative (the "back of the queue") comment.
4. A reliance on purely materialistic arguments in favour of the EU (GDP will be x% higher/lower) while failing to address emotional/idealistic arguments around self-government and sovereignty.
5. Inability to neutralise immigration as an issue.
The whole point is that the regime will change after the EU UPC is brought in. Not how the rules apply today.
One is an undemocratic group of different peoples headed up by an unelected elite dominated by german speaking people.
The other is a failed state that ended in 1918.