His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.
RCS seems to be talking cobblers then. How odd, when he is very knowledgeable on this issue.
No, the India-EU trade deal is more like a trade promotion deal rather than free trade. Trade tariffs on imports are an important source of income for developing nations.
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
Don't we already pretty much keep our IP laws in lockstep with the US anyway? TTIP is likely to end up with something very similar too. These IP laws in the 21st century are largely global not continental or national standards.
So I'm not seeing the problem. Sign TPP and get in there today with not just the USA but a dozen nations including China, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and more. That'd be an adrenaline boost to our exports while the EU is still pratting around with TTIP.
I see the problem. I wouldn't touch one of their deals with a ten foot pole.
But that's something we can debate about now because we're LEAVING THE EU!
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.
No it didn't. Full Fact is wrong there - not for the first time.
According to the BBC: What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105
Meaningless I am afraid and with no legal foundation.
In what way is the EEA not a ' political Union ' ? We accept the four Freedoms, make a huge budget contributions, accept rulings of a supranational trade court and a corpus of supranational corpus of law. You can argue it's a diet coke political union compared to normal coke but it's still a political union.
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.
RCS seems to be talking cobblers then. How odd, when he is very knowledgeable on this issue.
I am only basing this on the reports in the papers referring to this over the last few days. It is very early days yet but the noises are very positive.
Well, that's a mis-characterization too. The EU is inherently slow as a negotiating partner. We've just been discussing the EU-Indian FTA which has been in progress for a good nine years. The argument is that the UK would be nimbler than rEU. That seems entirely un-contentious.
You are right, it is entirely uncontentious.
Unfortunately, some of our Leaver friends don't seem to be able to get into their heads another entirely uncontentious point: that the EU, which is a market about seven times the size of the UK, has more bargaining power.
That's why I said that overall, I think trade deals are a red-herring; the overall effect of doing our own, as opposed to benefiting from the EU ones, is likely to be fairly neutral, once the dust has settled.
The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.
While you need to be sceptical of Eurobarometer (in that it's produced by the EU), it does produce figures comparable to those found by more reputable pollsters.
Page 30 suggests that we (and the Austrians) are very much the outliers on free movement of people.
64% of UK being in favour of free movement looks wrong.
I think if you scale all the numbers down by 20%, that's probably fair. I also suspect that it's one of the questions where people are embarassed to say they don't support it.
Nevertheless, we are an outlier.
Pan-EU refugee quotas seem to be a political issue in a number of countries. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and France (?).
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
I don't get the impression that intra-Eu free movement is as big a problem in France. I'm not sure what the largest groups are, but don't think they have anything in the same league as our polish population. Their attraction to Le pen will be driven more by problems with Muslim immigration, and even more so, Muslim integration/assimilation in France.
In France it would be more the migrant quotas from Syria and N Africa and the possibility of Turkish accession that would be the concern but if we exit the single market and refuse free movement and France overtakes us in GDP terms and Paris overtakes London we have nobody to blame but ourselves. The French will not believe their luck!
At what point does David Icke appear this week and is seen as a credible candidate in the midst of all the fun? (Fill in which Govt/shadow post/ party leader/Euro Commissioner as you see fit)
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.
No it didn't. Full Fact is wrong there - not for the first time.
According to the BBC: What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105
Meaningless I am afraid and with no legal foundation.
So not incorrect, just not legally watertight at the point the statement was made? All rather academic now, but it seems that we may have gone through all this disruption to end up worse off and having achieved nothing.
Interesting tidbit (which illustrates how ponderous trade talks can be). The draft FTA with Singapore was completed in October 2014. It was submitted to the ECJ in July 2015. It's not yet been ratified.
For the partisan crowd, it's genuinely not a dig at the EU. It should serve as a cautionary warning to all of us that trade agreements aren't necessarily swiftly hammered out on the back of a fag packet.
There was a collective intake of breath when Cameron stepped out of Number 10 with his wife at his side on Friday morning after he lost the referendum. OMG, that’s it, he’s going, said watching Tories. After that, there was time for a quick spot of sentimentality and dabbing of moistened eyes. That took care of the first ten minutes after David Cameron’s announcement. And then… on to what’s next.
The Tory party’s utter ruthlessness in these circumstances – in ousting Heath, in ousting Thatcher and rejecting Heseltine, in getting rid of IDS and lining up Michael Howard – is quite something to behold when you see it close up as a journalist.
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.
No it didn't. Full Fact is wrong there - not for the first time.
According to the BBC: What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105
Meaningless I am afraid and with no legal foundation.
So not incorrect, just not legally watertight at the point the statement was made? All rather academic now, but it seems that we may have gone through all this disruption to end up worse off and having achieved nothing.
@YellowSubmarine Well it's unsustainable because a fair few (I'd guess about a third) leave voters aren't motivated by immigration primarily but by sovereignty, most will be comfortable with staying in the single market and accepting free movement. Added to the 48% it's enough to get an EEA style arrangement over the line. Probably with a decent majority.
For me that would be a good outcome of this mess. I don't see it though, sadly.
How about taking the view that the 48% who voted remain, plus a rather large chunk of Leavers (the Richard Tyndall and Smithson Jr types) are perfectly happy with free movement.
It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.
It is obvious to me that over half the population would go for the EEA option, given full membership has been removed. Two issues: (1) It's up to the rEU to offer it to us and indications are that they probably won't, at least in its current form. (2) EEA is unlikely to work for Britain anyway. It's a balanced option designed to give nobody what they want.
Needless to say I disagree with both of those claims about EEA membership.
Just addressing the first it ignores the fact that we are an independent signatory to the EEA Agreement and that we have already had countries moving in the opposite direction from EFTA to the EU without having to rewrite the treaty. It needed a simple amendment under the Vienna Convention.
Given that it would give the EU basically everything they want including free movement of people I think you are overestimating the opposition anyway.
I know, we have been over this ground several times. Very briefly, it is very unlikely in practice that the UK would reenter/transfer to the EEA as an EFTA member without an explicit offer to do so by the EU negotiating team. As predicted by Open Europe's war gaming earlier this year, France but also Germany and Ireland would aim to peel off financial services from the single market deal with the UK. This is already starting to play out. As such, it isn't the EEA any more.
Do they have any polling pedigree because that is McGovern wipe out territory.
Firstly it is not McGovern territory, those were all states Obama won in 2008 and all but one in 2012 and secondly PPP, which is more reliable, had it much closer yesterday in most of those states
Do they have any polling pedigree because that is McGovern wipe out territory.
Firstly it is not McGovern territory, those were all states Obama won in 2008 and all but one in 2012 and secondly PPP, which is more reliable, had it much closer yesterday in most of those states
Do they have any polling pedigree because that is McGovern wipe out territory.
Firstly it is not McGovern territory, those were all states Obama won in 2008 and all but one in 2012 and secondly PPP, which is more reliable, had it much closer yesterday in most of those states
Florida 51-37 is apocalypse
It is rubbish, Trump has led Florida in a few recent polls. Remember too Carter led Reagan at this stage in 1980 and most of these polls are pre-BREXITand Trump's anti NAFTA announcement yesterday
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.
Full membership of the EU is the best option in terms of the deal for Britain. The EEA is (almost) objectively a worse deal than EU membership: you get all the things people object to about the EU: remote decision making, pay to play, unlimited immigration but add a very important extra one: a straight loss of sovereignty, which isn't pooled or shared. Britain has to do what it is told but has no input into any of the decision making. The EEA has the downsides of full EU membership plus more and no upside.
The compelling logic is that we should revert to full EU membership despite last Thursday's vote. This is a question for Leave voters. If you voted on assumptions that didn't turn out, it's quite reasonable to say, actually the original option is the best. I thought it was going to be fine, but now it isn't. Alternatively, they might say, I know what I am doing. Yes, I know it's going to be hard, people will lose their jobs, welfare standards, the possible collapse of the UK etc, but there's a bigger picture and a prize that is worth striving for.
The problem comes with pretence. There is no cost or consequennces but we can do what we like. There will be massively less immigration, or alternatively it was just a "possibility" and not something we were bothered about anyway. There will be all this extra money for the NHS etc etc.
Again almost everything you have said about the EEA there is wrong.
I'm not letting you away with that. I said the following about the EEA. How are they wrong?
1. remote decision making 2. pay to play 3. unlimited immigration (For clarity, I meant from EEA countries) 4. you have to do what you are told but have no input into the decision making
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.
Full membership of the EU is the best option in terms of the deal for Britain. The EEA is (almost) objectively a worse deal than EU membership: you get all the things people object to about the EU: remote decision making, pay to play, unlimited immigration but add a very important extra one: a straight loss of sovereignty, which isn't pooled or shared. Britain has to do what it is told but has no input into any of the decision making. The EEA has the downsides of full EU membership plus more and no upside.
The compelling logic is that
The problem comes with pretence. There is no cost or consequennces but we can do what we like. There will be massively less immigration, or alternatively it was just a "possibility" and not something we were bothered about anyway. There will be all this extra money for the NHS etc etc.
Again almost everything you have said about the EEA there is wrong.
I'm not letting you away with that. I said the following about the EEA. How are they wrong?
1. remote decision making 2. pay to play 3. unlimited immigration (For clarity, I meant from EEA countries) 4. you have to do what you are told but have no input into the decision making
Yes but directives and regulations outside the area of the single market no longer apply
OK, my fantasy Labour snap GE EU/Immigration Section of the manifesto:
BREXIT POLICY - Pause invocation of article 50 until at least Jan 2017. - Gain a memo of understanding with EFTA to join and preserve EEA status - Devise economic tests which are genuine indicators of economic crisis, and will need to be passed for Brexit to proceed. - Invoke A50 when all three of the above are in place. - If these conditions are not in place by Jan 2018, call a second referendum in which the options will be to 'Immediately trigger A50' or 'Suspend indefinitely A50 and remain in EU'.
MIGRATION / POPULATION POLICY: - Make the case that falling working age population and increase in pensioner population make some level of immigration highly desirable and define and commit to publish every 2 years an ideal level of immigration that would serve long-term demographics. This level would maintains working / childbearing age population (on current pension age), and ultimately be consistent with a long-term stable population. 120-160k/yr is a likely initial range, but would not be treated as a committed target. - Retain EFTA free movement, but make full use of benefit flexibility EFTA allows, to indirectly influence EU immigration. (Fight for financial passporting in return, although relax about some FS leaving London in a controlled way) - Target reduction in visa non-EU net immigration to around 50000 within 3 years (Universities to retain 9k fee cap during transition, and transitional arrangements tbc for business) - Introduction of variable pension age considered for those born after 5/4/61, and implemented in event of Brexit without EFTA. Pension age will be announced annually for individual age ranges, at least 10 years in advance of retirement date, with age variable by up to 4 months each year. (i.e. this will be an explicit price for any reduction in immigration) - Note contribution of tax-paying immigration to deficit reduction, and say extra tax receipts from immigration will be split 50:50 between deficit reduction and extra services to support population growth until deficit is within target, then fully committed to extra services at that point. - Budget pot to be set up from above for rapid funding for relief plans to areas and sectors particularly affected by immigration (e.g. the wider Fens / agriculture) - Update discrimination laws to include or make more explicit that discrimination against white British people is unlawful. - Asylum seekers who are not from recognised source countries or have engaged in forms of arrival that are either dangerous or help sustain people trafficking to be de-prioritised and obliged to process their claims in person through offices in areas of low inward migration (e.g. north of Scotland) and asylum detention to be moved to those areas. - Greater rights with respect to short-term temporary employment for asylum seekers being processed who are deemed to have played by the rules.
Long time reader - first time poster. I work in Financial Services as my main job. I have done for over 20 years. I have to challenge some of the rubbish being said about "No Brainer" and "Obvious" regarding Banks leaving London for other destinations. It is not a "No Brainer" for the following reasons. 1) London has Common Law - So does all the other Tier 1 Financial locations New York, Hong Kong, Singapore except Tokyo (which is a mostly domestic Market). Finance likes common law, it does not like Roman/European law due to the lack of predictability of the appointed Judiciary. You can argue which system is better, you cannot argue which one Finance prefers. Only Tier 2 Financial Locations use continental law - and in the case of Switzerland the role of Judges is severely weakened by the Referendum. You now have an EU where only one country (Ireland) has Common Law and 2 countries (Cyprus & Malta) have a mix of Common Law, Roman Law and their own unique takes. The chances of this standing now that you are left with 3 very small countries against the remaining 24 including the four largest by population - not good I would suggest. 2) Without the UK holding them back, the worst excesses of financial regulation will be imposed - Tobin Taxes, Bans on Short Selling, Bonus restrictions. Finance is an "Anglo-Saxon" plot remember, and since it can't be understood by Europeans it must be legislated to a point it can be understood. 3) Skill Sets. let's take Ireland for example (I've worked there & to be frank they don't really have the skill sets to manage the amount of money they already have flowing through there & it's mostly acting as a post office & back office function to Funds run in Greenwich & London). Ireland has about 4.5 Million people, take off 1/3 that who are too young or retired, the 10% of the workforce in the Public sector, the 10% in Agriculture & suddenly you're looking at a very small pool of talent. London has about 4 Times the numbers either in the M25 or within striking distance (1h 15 commute).
4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why? 5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim. 6) Nobody knows what trade deals will be signed between the UK & ROW. 7) The markets dropped more in Europe than they did in the UK. There's a reason for that. Britain is a Known Known, what happens to the rest of the EU is a known unknown. You may find you move your office to Paris to find that Marie le Pen gets elected. 8) The UK has the size of economy that can bail out banks. Ireland, Luxembourg and various other minows does not. Something that HSBC thought about before potentially moving their operations to Hong Kong. 9) The Eurozone still has the possibility of going "Bang", indeed the UK's departure has exacerbated the problem for the EU, the next time they pass round the collection plate for Greece/Spain/Portugal they may find those left are wanting their own opt outs. 10) History - The US tried to prevent Dollars being cleared by anybody other than the Fed in the mid 50's - it was designed to stop the Soviets from using their Dollars. Failed miserably and created the Eurodollar market - guess where it ended up - London.
Now whether the banks will consider all this before moving their operations in a fit of pique I don't know. But they would be wise to.
Do they have any polling pedigree because that is McGovern wipe out territory.
Firstly it is not McGovern territory, those were all states Obama won in 2008 and all but one in 2012 and secondly PPP, which is more reliable, had it much closer yesterday in most of those states
Florida 51-37 is apocalypse
It is rubbish, Trump has led Florida in a few recent polls. Remember too Carter led Reagan at this stage in 1980 and most of these polls are pre-BREXITand Trump's anti NAFTA announcement yesterday
4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why? 5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim. 6) Nobody knows what trade deals will be signed between the UK & ROW. 7) The markets dropped more in Europe than they did in the UK. There's a reason for that. Britain is a Known Known, what happens to the rest of the EU is a known unknown. You may find you move your office to Paris to find that Marie le Pen gets elected. 8) The UK has the size of economy that can bail out banks. Ireland, Luxembourg and various other minows does not. Something that HSBC thought about before potentially moving their operations to Hong Kong. 9) The Eurozone still has the possibility of going "Bang", indeed the UK's departure has exacerbated the problem for the EU, the next time they pass round the collection plate for Greece/Spain/Portugal they may find those left are wanting their own opt outs. 10) History - The US tried to prevent Dollars being cleared by anybody other than the Fed in the mid 50's - it was designed to stop the Soviets from using their Dollars. Failed miserably and created the Eurodollar market - guess where it ended up - London.
Now whether the banks will consider all this before moving their operations in a fit of pique I don't know. But they would be wise to.
Comments
But that's something we can debate about now because we're LEAVING THE EU!
Clinton 44 .. Trump 32 .. Johnson 9
http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160629/
The Chakrabarti Inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party will be published tomorrow.
Unfortunately, some of our Leaver friends don't seem to be able to get into their heads another entirely uncontentious point: that the EU, which is a market about seven times the size of the UK, has more bargaining power.
That's why I said that overall, I think trade deals are a red-herring; the overall effect of doing our own, as opposed to benefiting from the EU ones, is likely to be fairly neutral, once the dust has settled.
NEW THREAD
All rather academic now, but it seems that we may have gone through all this disruption to end up worse off and having achieved nothing.
Interesting tidbit (which illustrates how ponderous trade talks can be). The draft FTA with Singapore was completed in October 2014. It was submitted to the ECJ in July 2015. It's not yet been ratified.
For the partisan crowd, it's genuinely not a dig at the EU. It should serve as a cautionary warning to all of us that trade agreements aren't necessarily swiftly hammered out on the back of a fag packet.
The Tory party’s utter ruthlessness in these circumstances – in ousting Heath, in ousting Thatcher and rejecting Heseltine, in getting rid of IDS and lining up Michael Howard – is quite something to behold when you see it close up as a journalist.
http://reaction.life/tory-party-uniting-labour-right-terrified/
1. remote decision making
2. pay to play
3. unlimited immigration (For clarity, I meant from EEA countries)
4. you have to do what you are told but have no input into the decision making
BREXIT POLICY
- Pause invocation of article 50 until at least Jan 2017.
- Gain a memo of understanding with EFTA to join and preserve EEA status
- Devise economic tests which are genuine indicators of economic crisis, and will need to be passed for Brexit to proceed.
- Invoke A50 when all three of the above are in place.
- If these conditions are not in place by Jan 2018, call a second referendum in which the options will be to 'Immediately trigger A50' or 'Suspend indefinitely A50 and remain in EU'.
MIGRATION / POPULATION POLICY:
- Make the case that falling working age population and increase in pensioner population make some level of immigration highly desirable and define and commit to publish every 2 years an ideal level of immigration that would serve long-term demographics. This level would maintains working / childbearing age population (on current pension age), and ultimately be consistent with a long-term stable population. 120-160k/yr is a likely initial range, but would not be treated as a committed target.
- Retain EFTA free movement, but make full use of benefit flexibility EFTA allows, to indirectly influence EU immigration.
(Fight for financial passporting in return, although relax about some FS leaving London in a controlled way)
- Target reduction in visa non-EU net immigration to around 50000 within 3 years
(Universities to retain 9k fee cap during transition, and transitional arrangements tbc for business)
- Introduction of variable pension age considered for those born after 5/4/61, and implemented in event of Brexit without EFTA. Pension age will be announced annually for individual age ranges, at least 10 years in advance of retirement date, with age variable by up to 4 months each year. (i.e. this will be an explicit price for any reduction in immigration)
- Note contribution of tax-paying immigration to deficit reduction, and say extra tax receipts from immigration will be split 50:50 between deficit reduction and extra services to support population growth until deficit is within target, then fully committed to extra services at that point.
- Budget pot to be set up from above for rapid funding for relief plans to areas and sectors particularly affected by immigration (e.g. the wider Fens / agriculture)
- Update discrimination laws to include or make more explicit that discrimination against white British people is unlawful.
- Asylum seekers who are not from recognised source countries or have engaged in forms of arrival that are either dangerous or help sustain people trafficking to be de-prioritised and obliged to process their claims in person through offices in areas of low inward migration (e.g. north of Scotland) and asylum detention to be moved to those areas.
- Greater rights with respect to short-term temporary employment for asylum seekers being processed who are deemed to have played by the rules.
1) London has Common Law - So does all the other Tier 1 Financial locations New York, Hong Kong, Singapore except Tokyo (which is a mostly domestic Market). Finance likes common law, it does not like Roman/European law due to the lack of predictability of the appointed Judiciary. You can argue which system is better, you cannot argue which one Finance prefers. Only Tier 2 Financial Locations use continental law - and in the case of Switzerland the role of Judges is severely weakened by the Referendum. You now have an EU where only one country (Ireland) has Common Law and 2 countries (Cyprus & Malta) have a mix of Common Law, Roman Law and their own unique takes. The chances of this standing now that you are left with 3 very small countries against the remaining 24 including the four largest by population - not good I would suggest.
2) Without the UK holding them back, the worst excesses of financial regulation will be imposed - Tobin Taxes, Bans on Short Selling, Bonus restrictions. Finance is an "Anglo-Saxon" plot remember, and since it can't be understood by Europeans it must be legislated to a point it can be understood.
3) Skill Sets. let's take Ireland for example (I've worked there & to be frank they don't really have the skill sets to manage the amount of money they already have flowing through there & it's mostly acting as a post office & back office function to Funds run in Greenwich & London). Ireland has about 4.5 Million people, take off 1/3 that who are too young or retired, the 10% of the workforce in the Public sector, the 10% in Agriculture & suddenly you're looking at a very small pool of talent. London has about 4 Times the numbers either in the M25 or within striking distance (1h 15 commute).
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim.
6) Nobody knows what trade deals will be signed between the UK & ROW.
7) The markets dropped more in Europe than they did in the UK. There's a reason for that. Britain is a Known Known, what happens to the rest of the EU is a known unknown. You may find you move your office to Paris to find that Marie le Pen gets elected.
8) The UK has the size of economy that can bail out banks. Ireland, Luxembourg and various other minows does not. Something that HSBC thought about before potentially moving their operations to Hong Kong.
9) The Eurozone still has the possibility of going "Bang", indeed the UK's departure has exacerbated the problem for the EU, the next time they pass round the collection plate for Greece/Spain/Portugal they may find those left are wanting their own opt outs.
10) History - The US tried to prevent Dollars being cleared by anybody other than the Fed in the mid 50's - it was designed to stop the Soviets from using their Dollars. Failed miserably and created the Eurodollar market - guess where it ended up - London.
Now whether the banks will consider all this before moving their operations in a fit of pique I don't know. But they would be wise to.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html#polls
New thread's up, btw.