"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Quite so. And in an ideal world we'd have the five or ten or fifteen years that are required to secure all these trade deals at our leisure, and really nail the details.
We don't. We have months. As confidence flows down the drain, and companies disinvest, the months will shorten.
That is absolutely the problem. The government did no contingency planning. They have done no secret negotiations with the US or Australia just in case we voted to leave so on Monday they could announce that on leaving the EU we would immediately sign free trading agreements with such and such nations, we're still open for business and now we're globally competitive. It is truly lamentable how poor the planning has been for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot for over a year.
Dereliction of duty by Osborne, Hammond and Javid for the lack of planning for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot. All 3 should be fired. Javid needs to be skewered in this upcoming election.
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Quite so. And in an ideal world we'd have the five or ten or fifteen years that are required to secure all these trade deals at our leisure, and really nail the details.
We don't. We have months. As confidence flows down the drain, and companies disinvest, the months will shorten.
That is absolutely the problem. The government did no contingency planning. They have done no secret negotiations with the US or Australia just in case we voted to leave so on Monday they could announce that on leaving the EU we would immediately sign free trading agreements with such and such nations, we're still open for business and now we're globally competitive. It is truly lamentable how poor the planning has been for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot for over a year.
You can't have secret negotiations about a trade deal. There are too many moving parts.
In a while, Cameron's deal will be seen for what it was - the best possible option for the UK.
I'd be amazed if even Dave still thinks that.
I'm absolutely certain he thinks that. It's the crying shame of this whole shenanigans that, having finally got pretty close to an acceptable scenario, voters were conned into voting for a chimera which means that we're now getting all the short-term economic hit but are having to row back desperately.
Well, happily for the country, it is now a matter of little import what Cameron thinks.
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Equally, there are lots of countries in the world which aren't part of the United States. That doesn't mean that Arizona could secede from the US without an economic hit.
Arizonans haven't just had a referendum for secession like we have, though?
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
There is no two year ejection issue with the EEA. We can sign new trade deals elsewhere and be in a better negotiating position.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
One thing to remember is the reaction of other countries in the anglosphere. Australia and NZ want a trade deal now. The US too (and Canada?). The US is putting pressure on the EU not to be too tough with Britain (partly because the US is probably exasperated by EU protectionism and socialism).
The UK is in a strong position.
Who wouldn't jump at doing a deal with a new player with the 5th largest economy? The EU equivalent of the Berlin Wall has fallen.
Look, all od that stuff is great rhetoric but in the real world we can't just send Wills and Kate to India for a weekend and come back with a free trade deal, it will be a minimum of 4 years before we sign our first one independently of the EU. There are going to be some pretty hard days ahead if we leave the single market without getting all of that done first. I have our projections on fully out, they aren't pretty.
Let's see, and did I mention the Royals - no.
Thanks for patronising me.
No, but you seem to be under the impression that this all happens overnight. Tomorrow we leave the EU and by next Monday we've signed free trade deals with India, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Japan. It's going to be at least 4 years until one of those is done, and ita most likely to be Canada or South Korea, nations with which we can just use the existing EU deal and modify it to suit each country a bit better.
No, you are projecting. I've never ever said that.
The French were prepared to negotiate for 6 months Richard, Dave did his negotiating in 3 days. .
That's complete nonsense. By chance at a dinner I met someone who was part of his team in No 10. They were working flat-out from very soon after the election and Cameron was flying all over the place to get allies, as far as he could.
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
Is there any speculation on how the EU plans to tackle its circa E12bn budget hole after we leave?
Are you genuinely bothered or do you just a kick out of the thought of causing economic problems to other countries?
I wanted to dip into the knowledge base of folk on PB. The purpose being to better understand the pressures that exist within the EU on its funding, which will affect their negotiating strategies. Sorry OllyT that you view this as some attack or stirring but do please understand that I am not in the mode of REMAINers who want to talk down economies and forecast the End of Days.
To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
8:55 p.m. [Monday, 27 Jun 2016]
Members of a European trade alliance that Britain helped set up over a half-century ago say they're open to letting the UK back in now it has voted to leave the European Union.
Ministers from the European Free Trade Association met Monday in Bern for a previously planned gathering, but Britain's decision last week to leave the EU loomed large.
At a time when France actively blocked Britain from joining the EU's predecessor, Britain helped create EFTA as an alternative. It left EFTA in 1972 to join the EU, but English remains the official working language of its four current members: Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.
EFTA leaders noted that Britain has many issues to work through, but Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann told reporters that its return would strengthen the association. [source]
So, now our "partners" will be Iceland and Lichtenstein . God help us ! It is better to be with the WTO model.
OTOH. 10,000 people will get jobs in HMRC plus more Border control.
From my reading of the UK rebate mechanism, this is funded by extra contributions by the other member states. That is it does not come out of the EU budget.
So whilst the £350m per week is dubious from an UK perspective, the gross figure appears to be the actual loss to the EU budget.
So countries like Germany will no longer have to pay the UK rebate and so will have extra cash to fund expenditure at home.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
I think the emergency brake idea is a non starter. EEA membership is clearly a strong possibility and the EU will probably leap at the opportunity to limit economic damage but the idea we can then start messing with the membership criteria is just ludicrous.
We need to remember that we gained exemptions from various EU laws by opposing them prior to their being introduced and so getting opt outs as part of the process of bringing them into law. To join an existing arrangement and then try to change its existing rules appears to me utterly wrong.
To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
8:55 p.m. [Monday, 27 Jun 2016]
Members of a European trade alliance that Britain helped set up over a half-century ago say they're open to letting the UK back in now it has voted to leave the European Union.
Ministers from the European Free Trade Association met Monday in Bern for a previously planned gathering, but Britain's decision last week to leave the EU loomed large.
At a time when France actively blocked Britain from joining the EU's predecessor, Britain helped create EFTA as an alternative. It left EFTA in 1972 to join the EU, but English remains the official working language of its four current members: Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.
EFTA leaders noted that Britain has many issues to work through, but Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann told reporters that its return would strengthen the association. [source]
So, now our "partners" will be Iceland and Lichtenstein . God help us ! It is better to be with the WTO model.
OTOH. 10,000 people will get jobs in HMRC plus more Border control.
And Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest states in Europe.
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Equally, there are lots of countries in the world which aren't part of the United States. That doesn't mean that Arizona could secede from the US without an economic hit.
Nice, Mr. Nabavi, but we are not in a United States are we? So what actually was your point?
That there would be some turmoil? Well, yes that was agreed on here months ago. City folk like panic and volume, that is how they make the most money. So what?
I suggest those disagreeing with me today actually read Article 112 and Article 113 of the EEA agreement. You must have regular consultations with the EEA about emeregency safeguards but they are decided unilaterally.
Not disagreeing (welcome btw, we never disagree on PB).
Just saying that it is clear that it is for exceptional circumstances and the EU tries to make it for as short a time as possible (article linked above).
To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
8:55 p.m. [Monday, 27 Jun 2016]
Members of a European trade alliance that Britain helped set up over a half-century ago say they're open to letting the UK back in now it has voted to leave the European Union.
Ministers from the European Free Trade Association met Monday in Bern for a previously planned gathering, but Britain's decision last week to leave the EU loomed large.
At a time when France actively blocked Britain from joining the EU's predecessor, Britain helped create EFTA as an alternative. It left EFTA in 1972 to join the EU, but English remains the official working language of its four current members: Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.
EFTA leaders noted that Britain has many issues to work through, but Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann told reporters that its return would strengthen the association. [source]
So, now our "partners" will be Iceland and Lichtenstein . God help us ! It is better to be with the WTO model.
OTOH. 10,000 people will get jobs in HMRC plus more Border control.
And Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest states in Europe.
Mr. Bob, could be wrong, but I believe the Greenland situation occurred before the EU (as it is) existed.
Miss Plato, does rather highlight that the BBC didn't understand why the show was popular. They appear to have mistaken it for a car programme, rather than three ageing blokes cocking about in a politically incorrect way programme.
Amused to see the same people who claim Cameron got a 'rubbish' deal now embracing the worse deal of EEA.
In a while, Cameron's deal will be seen for what it was - the best possible option for the UK. Too late now, of course - the mindless slagging-off won the day for chaos.
It is not worse Richard as you well know. It is far better and you are just sulking.
To those that voted Remain: you fought a long, arduous campaign and strived to put your case forward. Unfortunately you failed and it is now your duty to accept the wishes of the majority and co-operate in ensuring that the future of this country is as successful as possible. To many of you this is the single greatest setback in your views and your ability to accept this and put it behind you will mark a growth in your maturity and make you a better person to the benefit of this great country, your family and yourselves.
To those who have arrived on our blessed shores: you have been witness to one of the most momentous events in political history since the second world war and although your presence may have been one of the causes of the referendum we, the people of Great Britain do not hold animosity against you. The fervour of the leave campaign is directed at those who created the current political position not your goodselves. If you intend to work here for a short period then we hope you enjoy our hospitality and when the time comes for you to leave, we wish you well and you may depart with our blessing. If you intend to remain here, we hope that you reach out and become part of the wider community, that you strive to better yourselves and this great country so that, on attainment, you may be proud to say "I am a British Citizen".
And to the Leave campaign. You have refused to be bowed by untold pressures placed upon you. Your determination and patriotism have won the day and this country has taken the first steps towards regaining its sovereignty. However I urge you to be magnanimous in victory, to reconcile yourselves with those who fervently held the opposite opinion, in the form of your colleagues, your friends and your families. They are fully worthy of that hand of friendship. And finally, ever remember that those who are in this country who could not vote are not unlike yourselves. They strive for a better life. They have husbands, wives, sweethearts, children and babies and their love of them is no different from the love you give to yours. They are not of themselves the cause of your dissatisfaction, your anger and hate should now be spent. Treat them as you would treat any person with whom you would be friends so that the reputation of our great country for tolerance and fair play may pass unsullied from generation to generation.
Mr. Glenn, will the SNP campaign for Scotland to join the euro?
The question is rather, will the SNP have a viable plan for the currency post-independence? The EU will ensure they have the answer they didn't have last time.
Have the SNP discussed the possibility of their entry with Spain and have they received assurances that there will be no veto to their entry.
Back to the granstanding Nicola - it's all she's good for.
The French were prepared to negotiate for 6 months Richard, Dave did his negotiating in 3 days. .
That's complete nonsense. By chance at a dinner I met someone who was part of his team in No 10. They were working flat-out from very soon after the election and Cameron was flying all over the place to get allies, as far as he could.
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Quite so. And in an ideal world we'd have the five or ten or fifteen years that are required to secure all these trade deals at our leisure, and really nail the details.
We don't. We have months. As confidence flows down the drain, and companies disinvest, the months will shorten.
That is absolutely the problem. The government did no contingency planning. They have done no secret negotiations with the US or Australia just in case we voted to leave so on Monday they could announce that on leaving the EU we would immediately sign free trading agreements with such and such nations, we're still open for business and now we're globally competitive. It is truly lamentable how poor the planning has been for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot for over a year.
You can't have secret negotiations about a trade deal. There are too many moving parts.
Yes, I'm sure that if HMG had spent 6 months contingency planning and a picture emerged of "what Leave might look like", even more would have voted Leave, as it would have run completely at odds with Project Fear. I might have found the resolve to vote Leave.
'Pat Glass has also revealed that she stayed away from her local EU referendum count after death threats were made against her, the Press Association reports.
Four threats were made to the police about Glass, who represents North West Durham, and who was shadow Europe minister until she was promoted on Monday to shadow education minister.
Glass did not see the threats but they were taken seriously enough by the police for her to be warned.
She said: “Police advice was that it was best to avoid being in places I was expected to be and I decided not to attend the count.”'
A man has been the victim of a racist attack on a tram in Manchester with youth shouting ‘get back to Africa’, authorities have confirmed.
Witnesses have described the abuse as ‘horrendous’ as at least three youths are seen shouting abuse at a man in a tram in Central Manchester on Tuesday morning.
The man, who appeared to have an American accent and be of mixed race, is seen asking the teenagers to stop swearing in front of children.
But the youth shouted back: “F--- get off the tram now. Don’t chat s---t or get deported”.
A man has been the victim of a racist attack on a tram in Manchester with youth shouting ‘get back to Africa’, authorities have confirmed.
Witnesses have described the abuse as ‘horrendous’ as at least three youths are seen shouting abuse at a man in a tram in Central Manchester on Tuesday morning.
The man, who appeared to have an American accent and be of mixed race, is seen asking the teenagers to stop swearing in front of children.
But the youth shouted back: “F--- get off the tram now. Don’t chat s---t or get deported”.
Came home to me today too. Was in a restaurant we go to regularly run by a French couple and the lady was telling us with tears welling up in her eyes about getting 3 phone calls on Friday telling her and her husband to "f*ck off back to France" and worse. She was really shaken.
Now I know that in the whole scheme of things these things are isolated incidents but this is not turning out to this country's finest hour and I can't honestly say I see it improving any time soon.
Clearly false flag operations.
Like those people on the Tram. Highly elaborate False Flag ops.
The French were prepared to negotiate for 6 months Richard, Dave did his negotiating in 3 days. .
That's complete nonsense. By chance at a dinner I met someone who was part of his team in No 10. They were working flat-out from very soon after the election and Cameron was flying all over the place to get allies, as far as he could.
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
Amused to see the same people who claim Cameron got a 'rubbish' deal now embracing the worse deal of EEA.
In a while, Cameron's deal will be seen for what it was - the best possible option for the UK. Too late now, of course - the mindless slagging-off won the day for chaos.
To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
8:55 p.m. [Monday, 27 Jun 2016]
Members of a European trade alliance that Britain helped set up over a half-century ago say they're open to letting the UK back in now it has voted to leave the European Union.
Ministers from the European Free Trade Association met Monday in Bern for a previously planned gathering, but Britain's decision last week to leave the EU loomed large.
At a time when France actively blocked Britain from joining the EU's predecessor, Britain helped create EFTA as an alternative. It left EFTA in 1972 to join the EU, but English remains the official working language of its four current members: Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.
EFTA leaders noted that Britain has many issues to work through, but Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann told reporters that its return would strengthen the association. [source]
So, now our "partners" will be Iceland and Lichtenstein . God help us ! It is better to be with the WTO model.
OTOH. 10,000 people will get jobs in HMRC plus more Border control.
And Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest states in Europe.
Mr. Alistair, the situation is better for the SNP today than yesterday, but the currency question remains.
Intriguingly, the UK economic picture can be played either way whatever happens.
Good economic prospects: See? We told you leaving a union could work fine. -- See? The UK is prosperous and strong, of course we should remain.
Bad economic prospects: See? I told you the UK was rubbish. -- See? We told you leaving a union would be bad for the economy.
Mr. Sykes, more to the point, do we want a leader who appears to say things he doesn't mean, not due to sly cunning but because he's just a bit sleepy?
I'm wondering more and more if Remain may have won if Cameron hadn't bothered with a renegotiation at all. If he had just called a referendum, said he thinks we should stay, and campaign on it.
He wouldn't have destroyed trust in himself with his perceived flip-flopping and trying to sell a crap deal, it would have been harder for recently europhile Boris to come out for Leave (no context for the switch).
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Quite so. And in an ideal world we'd have the five or ten or fifteen years that are required to secure all these trade deals at our leisure, and really nail the details.
We don't. We have months. As confidence flows down the drain, and companies disinvest, the months will shorten.
That is absolutely the problem. The government did no contingency planning. They have done no secret negotiations with the US or Australia just in case we voted to leave so on Monday they could announce that on leaving the EU we would immediately sign free trading agreements with such and such nations, we're still open for business and now we're globally competitive. It is truly lamentable how poor the planning has been for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot for over a year.
Dereliction of duty by Osborne, Hammond and Javid for the lack of planning for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot. All 3 should be fired. Javid needs to be skewered in this upcoming election.
lol - Bridiot post of the day - just beating Plato by a whisker.
Mr. Glenn, will the SNP campaign for Scotland to join the euro?
The question is rather, will the SNP have a viable plan for the currency post-independence? The EU will ensure they have the answer they didn't have last time.
Have the SNP discussed the possibility of their entry with Spain and have they received assurances that there will be no veto to their entry.
Back to the granstanding Nicola - it's all she's good for.
2014 thinking
When the SNP lost the first of the two referendums they have lost recently ?
Is there any speculation on how the EU plans to tackle its circa E12bn budget hole after we leave?
Are you genuinely bothered or do you just a kick out of the thought of causing economic problems to other countries?
I wanted to dip into the knowledge base of folk on PB. The purpose being to better understand the pressures that exist within the EU on its funding, which will affect their negotiating strategies. Sorry OllyT that you view this as some attack or stirring but do please understand that I am not in the mode of REMAINers who want to talk down economies and forecast the End of Days.
Accusing people of talking down the economy is simply a clumsy attempt to shut down debate and criticism of the downsides of Brexit.
I know a number of people who voted Leave in the hope it would cause chaos all over the EU - I don't believe for a second that you care how the EU resolves the issue other than hoping it causes upset for others.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
Of course, we can just walk out. But good luck being taken seriously by the markets or anyone else we wanted to do a trade deal with in the future.
Mr. Tonda, an interesting alternative history. I think you may be right. Mind you, he would likely have won this one if he'd actually bothered to renegotiate properly, or avoided obvious errors (Obama did not help him).
Mr. P, it's valid to say getting giddy over a day's trade is silly. But that didn't stop Conway et al. going giddy when the direction was down, did it?
The French were prepared to negotiate for 6 months Richard, Dave did his negotiating in 3 days. .
That's complete nonsense. By chance at a dinner I met someone who was part of his team in No 10. They were working flat-out from very soon after the election and Cameron was flying all over the place to get allies, as far as he could.
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
People said "give us special status"
He gave us special status.
All moot now. Let's look ahead.
We could have got the special status of having a lime green chair at EU summits. It is still meaningless and I will not have history rewritten. If Cameron had come back with a CAP opt out or any of the other things mentioned, no one could have said it was not meaningful. But he failed. Yet we can now get that better deal in the EEA.
A man has been the victim of a racist attack on a tram in Manchester with youth shouting ‘get back to Africa’, authorities have confirmed.
Witnesses have described the abuse as ‘horrendous’ as at least three youths are seen shouting abuse at a man in a tram in Central Manchester on Tuesday morning.
The man, who appeared to have an American accent and be of mixed race, is seen asking the teenagers to stop swearing in front of children.
But the youth shouted back: “F--- get off the tram now. Don’t chat s---t or get deported”.
Based on this morning, no doubt some commentators on here are grinning about that story
Wait till Plato speaks - in the wonderful world of Brexitania racism and xenophobia does not compute.
The thing that genuinely riles me up is this constant building of strawman arguments. This country has some racists. It also has some people I'll describe as giant cocks. They'll take advantage of a situation in order to be fucking horrible.
The overwhelming majority of the people in this country will not tolerate this behaviour. If the evidence is there, they should be punished. If it's not a criminal offence, it should still be challenged.
We can all go out of our way to reassure our local immigrants that we are fundamentally decent people.
If the loss of the EU as a single market was mitigated by deals with US, Canada, Australia, Korea, Japan - would Scotland vote to stick with Latvia, Croatia and tariffs with England?
This isn't just about the EU deal; it's about the global ones that Europe has failed to deliver.
To be fair, it's delivered quite a few (50ish countries?) - including Korea and Canada. I've no idea if the deals are any good or not, mind. It's not just about saying "hey, no tariffs" and shaking hands, it's also about making sure that our fine Scotch Whiskey doesn't fall foul of some rule about using caramel in it (for example).
The EU Canada deal is still not ratified. Meanwhile the EFTA/Canada deal has been operating since 2009.
In a while, Cameron's deal will be seen for what it was - the best possible option for the UK.
I'd be amazed if even Dave still thinks that.
I'm absolutely certain he thinks that. It's the crying shame of this whole shenanigans that, having finally got pretty close to an acceptable scenario, voters were conned into voting for a chimera which means that we're now getting all the short-term economic hit but are having to row back desperately.
Yes, the tragic irony is that we'll now have to grovel to the EU in order to get an arrangement that is a mere shell of Dave's original deal. It's a shame he didn't sell it as well as he could, but such was the frenzied atmosphere at the time - the sniping, the distortions, the ridicule and the the lies - that the nuances would have been lost and the headbangers would just have used it as a stick to beat him.
Mr. P, it's valid to say getting giddy over a day's trade is silly. But that didn't stop Conway et al. going giddy when the direction was down, did it?
It's a question of degree.
Look at the one day drop, Look at the one day uptick. Then review whether either are worthy of note...
It is now abundantly clear that no one of an even slightly sensible constitution is going to recommend an exit from the single market, nor invoke the fabled Article 50 unless and until they have secured a rock solid trade agreement with the EU to never leave said market. This will, of course, involve free movement of labour. Even the more sensible Leavers are recommending this.
Thus we will have put ourselves through a destabilising economic shock, months of uncertainty, two leadership crises, a renewed risk to the Union, the rattling of the Red BNP, the removal of a decent prime minister, the risk of negative equity, a rapid spike in hate crime and race related attacks (denied by some of the more nutty elements on here despite the easily available empirical evidence), the derision of our global peers, disinvestment of major structural employers, and a run on Sterling purely because those who obsessed about EU membership at the exclusion of almost anything else decided to froth wildly about Cameron's renegotiation.
The French were prepared to negotiate for 6 months Richard, Dave did his negotiating in 3 days. .
That's complete nonsense. By chance at a dinner I met someone who was part of his team in No 10. They were working flat-out from very soon after the election and Cameron was flying all over the place to get allies, as far as he could.
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
People said "give us special status"
He gave us special status.
All moot now. Let's look ahead.
We could have got the special status of having a lime green chair at EU summits. It is still meaningless and I will not have history rewritten. If Cameron had come back with a CAP opt out or any of the other things mentioned, no one could have said it was not meaningful. But he failed. Yet we can now get that better deal in the EEA.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
Of course not. No-one even remotely sensible ever thought he would.
If we go for the EEA option, as buyers'-remorse Leavers are now suggesting, we'll indeed be out of the CAP and CFP, but we won't get much of a reduction in contributions, we won't get any change to freedom of movement, and we won't get an emergency brake in any meaningful sense. On the downside we'll have given up our veto on Treaty changes (such as accession of Turkey), we'll have no say in the rules which affect us, and we'll have lost the institutional protection for the City against Eurozone hegemony.
Personally I think that's worse than what we had. It's certainly at best only a small incremental improvement if you give a lot of weight to certain items (but not immigration, the main Leave argument) - for which we'll have paid a huge price in economic disruption.
Plus voters will have been conned into thinking this was going to have an effect on immigration. Some Leavers don't seem to mind that. I do.
I lack faith in the economic perspective of a man who spent a Budget day interview enquiring, repeatedly, whether the Chancellor had ever travelled second class on a train.
If Watson runs and beats Corbyn then there will be a vacancy for Deputy Labour leader. Maybe Angela Eagle would get that post. I can see the headlines now:
Tom Watson tops leaderboard with his second Eagle.
The headless and sheep-like have been sheared. I continue to be amazed by their behaviour.
High-liquidity markets can overreact and bounce back quickly. London property is not in that category and will have a devastating effect on our banks if it heads south in a serious way.
Mr. Alistair, the situation is better for the SNP today than yesterday, but the currency question remains.
The currency question only exists in the deluded minds of those struggling to find a crutch to prevent Scottish Independence.
In 2014, Sterling would be the currency, the only actual unresolved issue is whether Scotland would be involved in BoE policy, which is slightly bizarre because Westminster is not involved in BoE policy. The forces which apply to BoE decisions on interest rates are predominanly external and the decisions are reactive.
It is a lunatics argument that even without a formal agreement, the use of Sterling would have any negative effects on the Scottish economy. Utter fantasy.
Look at the one day drop, Look at the one day uptick. Then review whether either are worthy of note...
It's the difference between investing and trading, we should care about the former and long-term market changes, but short-term changes are barely worth noting unless you are at the point of trading some stock.
Is there any speculation on how the EU plans to tackle its circa E12bn budget hole after we leave?
Are you genuinely bothered or do you just a kick out of the thought of causing economic problems to other countries?
I wanted to dip into the knowledge base of folk on PB. The purpose being to better understand the pressures that exist within the EU on its funding, which will affect their negotiating strategies. Sorry OllyT that you view this as some attack or stirring but do please understand that I am not in the mode of REMAINers who want to talk down economies and forecast the End of Days.
Accusing people of talking down the economy is simply a clumsy attempt to shut down debate and criticism of the downsides of Brexit. I know a number of people who voted Leave in the hope it would cause chaos all over the EU - I don't believe for a second that you care how the EU resolves the issue other than hoping it causes upset for others.
I replied to you in a reasonable manner and you repeat that accusation. OK time to place on Ignore.
Comments
If it's remaining, separation must occur (of the UK) before the UK leaves the EU. Still not sure the EU would see things that way.
@thetimes: Hinkley project likely to become £18bn casualty https://t.co/1CgO9dSg24 https://t.co/JTe6GnqpMG
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
As I said at the time, the deal was pretty good, but disappointing on Benefits (and hence migration, as far as that went). That was always going to be a difficult one for the Eastern European countries, and they misjudged it. However, the main problem was the press here, not helped by certain Tory MPs, slagging off the deal in absurd and intemperate terms. Probably they would have done that whatever the deal.
Still, that is all history. I see zero chance of us getting as good a deal now. We are into damage-limitation mode.
OTOH. 10,000 people will get jobs in HMRC plus more Border control.
So whilst the £350m per week is dubious from an UK perspective, the gross figure appears to be the actual loss to the EU budget.
So countries like Germany will no longer have to pay the UK rebate and so will have extra cash to fund expenditure at home.
We need to remember that we gained exemptions from various EU laws by opposing them prior to their being introduced and so getting opt outs as part of the process of bringing them into law. To join an existing arrangement and then try to change its existing rules appears to me utterly wrong.
That there would be some turmoil? Well, yes that was agreed on here months ago. City folk like panic and volume, that is how they make the most money. So what?
Just saying that it is clear that it is for exceptional circumstances and the EU tries to make it for as short a time as possible (article linked above).
Miss Plato, does rather highlight that the BBC didn't understand why the show was popular. They appear to have mistaken it for a car programme, rather than three ageing blokes cocking about in a politically incorrect way programme.
To those that voted Remain: you fought a long, arduous campaign and strived to put your case forward. Unfortunately you failed and it is now your duty to accept the wishes of the majority and co-operate in ensuring that the future of this country is as successful as possible. To many of you this is the single greatest setback in your views and your ability to accept this and put it behind you will mark a growth in your maturity and make you a better person to the benefit of this great country, your family and yourselves.
To those who have arrived on our blessed shores: you have been witness to one of the most momentous events in political history since the second world war and although your presence may have been one of the causes of the referendum we, the people of Great Britain do not hold animosity against you. The fervour of the leave campaign is directed at those who created the current political position not your goodselves. If you intend to work here for a short period then we hope you enjoy our hospitality and when the time comes for you to leave, we wish you well and you may depart with our blessing. If you intend to remain here, we hope that you reach out and become part of the wider community, that you strive to better yourselves and this great country so that, on attainment, you may be proud to say "I am a British Citizen".
And to the Leave campaign. You have refused to be bowed by untold pressures placed upon you. Your determination and patriotism have won the day and this country has taken the first steps towards regaining its sovereignty. However I urge you to be magnanimous in victory, to reconcile yourselves with those who fervently held the opposite opinion, in the form of your colleagues, your friends and your families. They are fully worthy of that hand of friendship. And finally, ever remember that those who are in this country who could not vote are not unlike yourselves. They strive for a better life. They have husbands, wives, sweethearts, children and babies and their love of them is no different from the love you give to yours. They are not of themselves the cause of your dissatisfaction, your anger and hate should now be spent. Treat them as you would treat any person with whom you would be friends so that the reputation of our great country for tolerance and fair play may pass unsullied from generation to generation.
Thank you.
(Think a lot of people have their fingers crossed over that one actually, but with different hopes for it!)
https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/status/747801478224551936
'Pat Glass has also revealed that she stayed away from her local EU referendum count after death threats were made against her, the Press Association reports.
Four threats were made to the police about Glass, who represents North West Durham, and who was shadow Europe minister until she was promoted on Monday to shadow education minister.
Glass did not see the threats but they were taken seriously enough by the police for her to be warned.
She said: “Police advice was that it was best to avoid being in places I was expected to be and I decided not to attend the count.”'
Like those people on the Tram. Highly elaborate False Flag ops.
He gave us special status.
All moot now. Let's look ahead.
Sunil Prasannan, BSc. (Hons.), ARCS, PhD, DIC*
(*that's Diploma of Imperial College, NOT Drunk in Charge
Intriguingly, the UK economic picture can be played either way whatever happens.
Good economic prospects:
See? We told you leaving a union could work fine. -- See? The UK is prosperous and strong, of course we should remain.
Bad economic prospects:
See? I told you the UK was rubbish. -- See? We told you leaving a union would be bad for the economy.
Mr. Sykes, more to the point, do we want a leader who appears to say things he doesn't mean, not due to sly cunning but because he's just a bit sleepy?
He wouldn't have destroyed trust in himself with his perceived flip-flopping and trying to sell a crap deal, it would have been harder for recently europhile Boris to come out for Leave (no context for the switch).
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/747809804354260992
@HurstLlama posted this a few days ago and its so accurate. Many PBers would benefit from watching the whole thing - Bird & Fortune.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRFoxgEcHc
Going for a hattrick ?
I know a number of people who voted Leave in the hope it would cause chaos all over the EU - I don't believe for a second that you care how the EU resolves the issue other than hoping it causes upset for others.
Mr. P, it's valid to say getting giddy over a day's trade is silly. But that didn't stop Conway et al. going giddy when the direction was down, did it?
The overwhelming majority of the people in this country will not tolerate this behaviour. If the evidence is there, they should be punished. If it's not a criminal offence, it should still be challenged.
We can all go out of our way to reassure our local immigrants that we are fundamentally decent people.
Mr. Meeks, excessive devolution for London may lead to various regional rubbish assemblies in England rather than the English Parliament we need.
Look at the one day drop, Look at the one day uptick. Then review whether either are worthy of note...
Thus we will have put ourselves through a destabilising economic shock, months of uncertainty, two leadership crises, a renewed risk to the Union, the rattling of the Red BNP, the removal of a decent prime minister, the risk of negative equity, a rapid spike in hate crime and race related attacks (denied by some of the more nutty elements on here despite the easily available empirical evidence), the derision of our global peers, disinvestment of major structural employers, and a run on Sterling purely because those who obsessed about EU membership at the exclusion of almost anything else decided to froth wildly about Cameron's renegotiation.
Not history.
If we go for the EEA option, as buyers'-remorse Leavers are now suggesting, we'll indeed be out of the CAP and CFP, but we won't get much of a reduction in contributions, we won't get any change to freedom of movement, and we won't get an emergency brake in any meaningful sense. On the downside we'll have given up our veto on Treaty changes (such as accession of Turkey), we'll have no say in the rules which affect us, and we'll have lost the institutional protection for the City against Eurozone hegemony.
Personally I think that's worse than what we had. It's certainly at best only a small incremental improvement if you give a lot of weight to certain items (but not immigration, the main Leave argument) - for which we'll have paid a huge price in economic disruption.
Plus voters will have been conned into thinking this was going to have an effect on immigration. Some Leavers don't seem to mind that. I do.
I lack faith in the economic perspective of a man who spent a Budget day interview enquiring, repeatedly, whether the Chancellor had ever travelled second class on a train.
Tom Watson tops leaderboard with his second Eagle.
In 2014, Sterling would be the currency, the only actual unresolved issue is whether Scotland would be involved in BoE policy, which is slightly bizarre because Westminster is not involved in BoE policy. The forces which apply to BoE decisions on interest rates are predominanly external and the decisions are reactive.
It is a lunatics argument that even without a formal agreement, the use of Sterling would have any negative effects on the Scottish economy. Utter fantasy.
Hearing stories of graduates being told by City banks: your job offer had Brexit clause. All bets are off .
1. Won a couple friendlies.
2.
Interestingly I understand Corbyn MPs did end up voting, had been suggestions they would not as part of effort to delegitimise motion
Is it true that 52% is bigger than 48%?
Just wanted you to enlighten me, thanks
Cometh the hour. Cometh the man. Huge mandate. Start of his term. Here we go.