@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Just wait until we've got our Vanguards doing double duty as nuclear deterrent cum fisheries protection vessels. Territorial waters out to 200 miles, sorted.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
It is what it is John, luckily for me I have some options and am considering a move to a country with a lower cost of living. Given what I have been doing, working in the online gambling industry for the last couple of years there appears to be job opportunities in Malta for someone of my background
@Pagan - I founded Betgenius, if you want me to put a word in for you there.
Thanks Robert depends what they are looking for I guess, currently got a few irons in the fire at the moment and just renewing my passport.
Breaking strain of a kit Kat. Mind you looking at the Labour Party internal machinations at the moment prevention of domestic violence and abuse will be much needed
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
I thought that was an excellent piece, Robert. "It's the economy, stupid! - just not the headline numbers"
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
It is what it is John, luckily for me I have some options and am considering a move to a country with a lower cost of living. Given what I have been doing, working in the online gambling industry for the last couple of years there appears to be job opportunities in Malta for someone of my background
@Pagan - I founded Betgenius, if you want me to put a word in for you there.
Thanks Robert depends what they are looking for I guess, currently got a few irons in the fire at the moment and just renewing my passport.
Do you want to drop me an email and we can take this off-line?
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
The membership fees fugure did include that, yes - minus the ammount we were allowed to keep as an administration fee. Those duties of course have a dynamic effect that isn't included, but so do so many of the EU's policies. Things like barely being able to fish any of our own fish weren't included.
But the point was the big focus on 'fees'. It was a very good piece of misdirection by Remain.
Thanks for the info on salaries Interesting to note that the PM barely scrapes into the top slot. Children are expensive
By the looks so are horses
That, I can attest to. Bloody things.
Horses or kids?
I can definitely agree that kids cost an arm and a leg and your very soul!
Horses. Cost an arm and a leg, then break as soon as you want to compete or sell them.
Kids, too. One only, but going to George Washington University. I think she purposely chose one of the most expensive colleges in the country to go with one of the most expensive sports ... PS, we still love her somehow
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Fish may be migratory, but isn't fishing done mainly at known locations along the migratory paths - e.g. Georges Banks and Grand Banks?
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Just wait until we've got our Vanguards doing double duty as nuclear deterrent cum fisheries protection vessels. Territorial waters out to 200 miles, sorted.
That would put the southern edge of the area somewhere along the line Nantes to Paris. Call me sceptical but I can't see the frenchies being overly enthusiastic.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
One of the key benefits of leaving the EU should be lower food prices. But there is a big proviso in there: the gap between EU and non-EU prices of a lot of soft commodities has shrunk massively in the last decade, as food price inflation kicked in around the world.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
For the fees. Not for overall outgoings.
What other outgoings do you have in mind? Specifically?
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
Understood, but my question was a genuine question. Do the calculations that go into either of those numbers include the excise duties on goods from outside the EU. On digging a little further, I see that the answer is probably yes, that is already including in the calculation of national contributions.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
Understood, but my question was a genuine question. Do the calculations that go into either of those numbers include the excise duties on goods from outside the EU. On digging a little further, I see that the answer is probably yes, that is already including in the calculation of national contributions.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
One of the key benefits of leaving the EU should be lower food prices. But there is a big proviso in there: the gap between EU and non-EU prices of a lot of soft commodities has shrunk massively in the last decade, as food price inflation kicked in around the world.
Food prices will no doubt be cheaper outside the EU than in it.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
Understood, but my question was a genuine question. Do the calculations that go into either of those numbers include the excise duties on goods from outside the EU. On digging a little further, I see that the answer is probably yes, that is already including in the calculation of national contributions.
They're included in the link I posted to. In total, customs duties remitted to the EU across the whole continent come to €18bn/year, and it therefore accounts for about 10% of the EU budget.
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
I (well my family of non-working wife + 3 kids and me) am much poorer than I thought! Only a bit more than a third of the way along the spectrum - firmly in the bottom half anyway.
Yet all my child benefit is clawed back as I am "too rich"... grrrrr
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
The whole point was that it was barely defensible. Just like the No2AV campaign about the "cost of a new voting system" (being the cost of the referendum, so totally sunk).
Your opponents can't resist calling you out on it, so it fills the news cycle again and again.
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Just wait until we've got our Vanguards doing double duty as nuclear deterrent cum fisheries protection vessels. Territorial waters out to 200 miles, sorted.
That would put the southern edge of the area somewhere along the line Nantes to Paris. Call me sceptical but I can't see the frenchies being overly enthusiastic.
This showed that inequality had decreased - looking at the ratio between 9th and 1st deciles. However the last graph showed that at the same time a large growth in the income of the top 1%.
This is probably more a global phenomenon and more difficult to address than the more national decile ratios (is it is easier for government to make 98% of the population more equal than the remaining 2%).
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
Where does it show that individual British departmental spending, as opposed to GNI percentage, VAT, and customs levies, are included in the figures you link to? http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/resources/index_en.cfm
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
Merkel is venerated in the UK as sort of the personification of effective and efficient German statecraft, and skilled at international diplomacy.
As Russia, Syria, Brexit, Greece and the EU have shown, she's actually quite crap, but she looks and acts very competent whilst doing it.
A sort of reverse Boris Johnson then, who has actually got a decent win list, while looking like a bit of an incompetent buffoon!
@rcs1000 - I think that's true only up to a point. Most people aren't motivated solely by money (it would be a very hollow world if they were) and values, principles and emotions do play a strong part in politics.
In times of economic prosperity, voters might vote for a party that scores less strongly on the economy and economic growth if they think the alternative wouldn't be significantly worse in order to score better public goods they value more highly - I.e. New Labour in 1997 on schools and hospitals.
Conversely, in times of economic woe they might vote for an option on tighter immigration if they think they'd continue to have their incomes stagnate anyway with the alternative, but would prefer to pay a small price for that control.
All other things being equal, cash in the bank wins, but all else is not equal or, at least, not perceived to be.
Did you read my piece The Discontented? I really think the rise of insurgent political movements is because median real wages have gone backwards everywhere. Essentially, the 1% (me, and people like me) have gotten richer, but too many people have gotten poorer.
When I voted Leave I did so because I felt the UK and the EU were simply too dissimilar politically and culturally, that the EU had a democratic deficit, and that there were certain things (like farming and fishing) that would always be better organised at a local level.
All those things are true.
But people like me didn't win it for Leave. The people who won it for Leave were those who felt that the economy wasn't being run for their benefit, and who came out and registered an objection to the status quo.
The Discontented may very well win it for Donald Trump in the US.
Why would you think that fishing, of all things, would be better organised at a local level?
Fish are migratory and have no respect for national waters, which means that what one nation does in its waters can critically affect the viability of other nations' waters. I'd have thought that fishing is a perfect example of the sort of activity that can benefit from regulation at an international level!
Fish may be migratory, but isn't fishing done mainly at known locations along the migratory paths - e.g. Georges Banks and Grand Banks?
?
Had to look that one up! Only 50 years since I last saw the film, so you've now got me worried about my memory and whether I have early stage Parkinson's.
I feel quite sorry for you, though we've never met. It will be cold comfort I'm sure, but you're still in the ninth decile for UK incomes. That is, you're top 20%. That's how bad its become.
It is what it is John, luckily for me I have some options and am considering a move to a country with a lower cost of living. Given what I have been doing, working in the online gambling industry for the last couple of years there appears to be job opportunities in Malta for someone of my background
@Pagan - I founded Betgenius, if you want me to put a word in for you there.
Thanks Robert depends what they are looking for I guess, currently got a few irons in the fire at the moment and just renewing my passport.
Do you want to drop me an email and we can take this off-line?
Sure will drop you a pm here with my email address in
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
For the fees. Not for overall outgoings.
What other outgoings do you have in mind? Specifically?
Over a billion in 2012, more in 2013, given to the European Commission and the European Development fund from the DFID budget, *as distinct* from being given to specific programmes organised by those two organisations. Just direct budgetary contributions. That will obviously have gone up a great deal in the interim, but the figures for 2014 (and one assumes beyond) are not shown in the same way. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403381/SID-2014-revised-UNDP-figure-feb15.pdf Page 41.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
I thought Mercosur was pretty anti-UK due to the Falklands - or has that changed with the new Argentine president?
I wasn't actually talking about the difficulty of getting them, more about the fact it seems to me there must always be a winner and a loser once you get one. With the dominant partner being the winner.
The way that I understand it, the £350million was drawn from the pink book detailing all monies flowing from the UK to the EU. Remain very cleverly made this about 'membership fees' and within their own definition, they were quite right, the £350million was an overestimate. But membership fees are not the only money to be remitted to the EU - with the teensiest bit of digging I was able to find billions more going that way out of the overeas aid budget. I dare say much more comes out of other departmental budgets, local government, etc. That makes the pink book figure more accurate in my book. But it was a point that Vote Leave, in typically inept fashion, failed to make.
Does it include the excise duties on goods coming into the UK from non-EU countries - monies that go directly into the EU budget separately from the national contribution?
I am not a big fan of using the net number for the EU, as regaining control of how (and if) we subsidise agcriculture is a key benefit of leaving,
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
Where does it show that individual British departmental spending, as opposed to GNI percentage, VAT, and customs levies, are included in the figures you link to? http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/resources/index_en.cfm
The point is that that includes *all* revenues of the EU. So, you can see that 69% is GNI based, 12% VAT, 13% Common External Tariff, and just 5% of revenues from other.
Now, I guess it's theoretically possible that only the UK pays into the "Other" pot (which totals about £5bn). And therefore it makes up the difference between £250m/week and £350m.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
I thought Mercosur was pretty anti-UK due to the Falklands - or has that changed with the new Argentine president?
I wasn't actually talking about the difficulty of getting them, more about the fact it seems to me there must always be a winner and a loser once you get one. With the dominant partner being the winner.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
I thought Mercosur was pretty anti-UK due to the Falklands - or has that changed with the new Argentine president?
Chile has traditionally been a strong UK ally, and the Brazilian's hate the Argentinians. As a Brazilian Ambassador once told me "Tim, you have to understand, Argentinians are Italian immigrants who think they speak Spanish, think they live in Paris, would like to be British and dress like Arabs."
For you or I, of course. However, for the person who's job was transfered to Poland by Cadburys despite assurances of the opposite what have they got to lose? Or the person who has seem profits rise at the multinational company they work for while being told that there isn't as much overtime available and they will be holding pay rises down to inflationary levels
Your mindset is of someone who is in the to 10% of UK earners, we have, overall, done better than everyone else in the country over the last 10 years. In 3 years I have seen my own wages double excluding performance linked pay, my wage rise covers a lot of stagnation in the middle and contraction at the bottom rung. I hate the phrase, but for a lot of people the minimum wage has become the maximum wage, they have very little to lose.
That's what I find so fascinating about the outcome. My view is we'll both be fine outside the EU. It's the those who thought they had nothing to lose who are going to lose the most. Though as this thread is teasing out my definition of " lose " for Brexit backers seems to be largely wrong headed.
PS. I'm intrigued that anything I've ever typed makes me come across as a Top 10% income earner !
How much do you have to earn to be in the 10% club..... Or the 5% club for that matter. Just wondering
They're a couple of years old, but median gross income for the top decile (single adult) is £60.5k. For a traditional family (2+2), it's £151.4k. Globally, you're in it whatever you make.
10% of families have incomes above £151k? Source please? That sounds high.
OK... I see it
As the *median* of the top decile, only 5% have incomes above that. I think.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
Rumours that the country the other side of the channel can match it are greatly exaggerated.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
I thought Mercosur was pretty anti-UK due to the Falklands - or has that changed with the new Argentine president?
I wasn't actually talking about the difficulty of getting them, more about the fact it seems to me there must always be a winner and a loser once you get one. With the dominant partner being the winner.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
The issue with Mercosur in particular is that a good chunk of their likely export mix is agricultural. That means British consumers will be concerned with welfare standards, chemical regimes, use of GMO crops and so on. Therefore our trade negotiators will have to go into bat on those topics, which takes time, grandfathered or not.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
Rumours that the country the other side of the channel can match it are greatly exaggerated.
I may be bias
But, honestly we live in the garden of Eden, don't we?
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
We have a temperate climate, extremely fertile soil, a highly mechanised agricultural system and a sophisticated level of maturity of micro finance, good transport, a business environment that's very attractive for start ups and a well networked market.
On the other hand, the British food consumer is becoming more discerning and the globe has more people to feed than ever with growing middle classes across most of Asia, and potentially parts of Africa, demanding Western diets and luxuries.
British agriculture will become more high-end and thrive like never before.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
Rumours that the country the other side of the channel can match it are greatly exaggerated.
I may be bias
But, honestly we live in the garden of Eden, don't we?
I came to the Wye Valley almost accidentally. They'll have to carry me away in a box, Just love it. Now I've turned into crazy old dog person, I'm pretty much confined to the UK for holidays, but with still so many more places to see, it's no hardship.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
We have a temperate climate, extremely fertile soil, a highly mechanised agricultural system and a sophisticated level of maturity of micro finance, good transport, a business environment that's very attractive for start ups and a well networked market.
On the other hand, the British food consumer is becoming more discerning and the globe has more people to feed than ever with growing middle classes across most of Asia, and potentially parts of Africa, demanding Western diets and luxuries.
British agriculture will become more high-end and thrive like never before.
That's my take too. Not only higher end raw foodstuffs, but also more locally processed foods, like high end hams and salamis, pies, preserves, etc ... So a shift out of low end commodities and into bespoke food products.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
Sarah Champion unresigns as Labour Shadow Minister in letter to Jeremy Corbyn. Good news.
And so the crawl back begins.
Some will accept posts under Corbyn, others will slink away quietly and hope for the best in future, others will talk of unifying after the members have spoken and hope that saves them, and the end result will be no more than a few hardcore recalcitrant. Beaten down.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
Rumours that the country the other side of the channel can match it are greatly exaggerated.
I may be bias
But, honestly we live in the garden of Eden, don't we?
I came to the Wye Valley almost accidentally. They'll have to carry me away in a box, Just love it. Now I've turned into crazy old dog person, I'm pretty much confined to the UK for holidays, but with still so many more places to see, it's no hardship.
You go to some parts of the country on a beautiful day like this, when everything is thickly lush and green, with the smells of summer, sweet fresh air filling your nostrils and sublime birdsong as the soundtrack, and think to yourself, 'they talk about heaven and the afterlife?'
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
My preference for Brexit was precisely because I see it as the best way forward for Britain.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a losing side having opinions and voicing them about the future way forward, or indeed in this case fighting for in their view the least damaging version of Brexit that is achievable. 'Your side lost' is amazingly lazy as a counter argument, and is nonsense to boot - we did not have the discussion about what version of Brexit would be taken, only that Brexit would happen and there were an array of possibilities arising from it. Any insistence that the discussion on the type of Brexit has been had is factually incorrect.
So in fact it is vitally important the discussion is had, and all voices are valid even if they were on the losing side of the vote on the principle of Brexit. Because that is all it was, a vote on the principle of it, like outline planning permission. Shutting down discussion on the details would itself be illegitimate.
Honestly this is the Tories fault - as a Leaver myself I am very interested in what version of Leave they will go for, and the leadership contest was going to be a key way of determining that, and they short cutted it. Some Remainers and Leavers may have common cause now for a start.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
And have more stables turned into weekend cottages, more petting zoos, and more Olde Shoppes selling jams and preserves which will sit in Londoners' pantries unopened until the jars explode.
Absolutely. The British countryside is a fantastic asset unmatched anywhere else on earth.
Rumours that the country the other side of the channel can match it are greatly exaggerated.
I may be bias
But, honestly we live in the garden of Eden, don't we?
I came to the Wye Valley almost accidentally. They'll have to carry me away in a box, Just love it. Now I've turned into crazy old dog person, I'm pretty much confined to the UK for holidays, but with still so many more places to see, it's no hardship.
You go to some parts of the country on a beautiful day like this, when everything is thickly lush and green, with the smells of summer, sweet fresh air filling your nostrils and sublime birdsong as the soundtrack, and think to yourself, 'they talk about heaven and the afterlife?'
This is heaven. This is the afterlife.
My first mid-tour leave from Yemen was in May. Coming in to land, the green of a British late spring was both wonderful and so intense it almost hurt the eyes.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a losing side having opinions and voicing them about the future way forward, or indeed in this case fighting for in their view the least damaging version of Brexit that is achievable.
No, and those who voted to Remain must participate in deciding what variety of Leave we get.
But they also must accept that it will be a variety of Leave.
The FBI is now investigating the DNC hack. I can't see any outcome that is good for Clinton. If they prove it was the Russians it just brings her judgement into question again over her own private email server into question.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a losing side having opinions and voicing them about the future way forward, or indeed in this case fighting for in their view the least damaging version of Brexit that is achievable. 'Your side lost' is amazingly lazy as a counter argument, and is nonsense to boot - we did not have the discussion about what version of Brexit would be taken, only that Brexit would happen and there were an array of possibilities arising from it. Any insistence that the discussion on the type of Brexit has been had is factually incorrect.
So in fact it is vitally important the discussion is had, and all voices are valid even if they were on the losing side of the vote on the principle of Brexit. Because that is all it was, a vote on the principle of it, like outline planning permission. Shutting down discussion on the details would itself be illegitimate.
Honestly this is the Tories fault - as a Leaver myself I am very interested in what version of Leave they will go for, and the leadership contest was going to be a key way of determining that, and they short cutted it.
I'm interested in any rational contributions to a discussion about how best to implement Brexit.
But that's not what we're getting. We are just getting bucket loads of existential angst, insults and petulant demands for a re-run from the Remain side.
At this point, they are simply not worth engaging with (as Brexiteers far more eminent than myself, who have tried to engage with them in recent weeks, are discovering).
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
Lol - if reports in the papers today turn out to be accurate we might be in the single market with an emergency break on migration - Brexit-lite, very lite.
''Lol - if reports in the papers today turn out to be accurate we might be in the single market with an emergency break on migration - Brexit-lite, very lite''
We'll also be able to negotiate some juicy trade deals not available to other EU countries, so what's not to like for a remainer?
''Lol - if reports in the papers today turn out to be accurate we might be in the single market with an emergency break on migration - Brexit-lite, very lite''
We'll also be able to negotiate some juicy trade deals not available to other EU countries, so what's not to like for a remainer?
After the US, China and India, the South American group Mercosur now wants a trade deal, according to Guido.
If we can tie up an arrangement with Europe, all this could end up with us being a rather wealthy nation.
I'm not sure trade deals work like that.
But importing our food from NZ, Australia, Africa and South America could greatly reduce families' food bills vs the same goods from EU sources.
And decimate what's left of our farmers....
I'm actually seriously unworried about that.
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
It's weird to see Remainers arguing on the one hand that a 'less open' UK after Brexit will be economically negative, and then when Brexiteers suggest trade policies that are more liberal than the current ones, arguing for protectionism instead.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
We've had the discussion. Your side lost it. We'll now sort things out thanks.
Unfortunately the leave leadership have proved to be inept and/or cowardly and have left the real negotiations to non leavers.
Comments
DNC emails show party officials planning which Clinton donors to propose for appointments to federal boards and commissions. Is this naked corruption?
He's going nowhere.
I can definitely agree that kids cost an arm and a leg and your very soul!
Yes: 30%
No: 60% a killer surely? (Crooked Hillary resonates).
But the point was the big focus on 'fees'. It was a very good piece of misdirection by Remain.
Kids, too. One only, but going to George Washington University. I think she purposely chose one of the most expensive colleges in the country to go with one of the most expensive sports ... PS, we still love her somehow
Nevertheless the £350m number was misleading because it was pre-rebate. £250m (or thereabouts) was a defensible number.
?
Call me sceptical but I can't see the frenchies being overly enthusiastic.
In USD...
I (well my family of non-working wife + 3 kids and me) am much poorer than I thought! Only a bit more than a third of the way along the spectrum - firmly in the bottom half anyway.
Yet all my child benefit is clawed back as I am "too rich"... grrrrr
Your opponents can't resist calling you out on it, so it fills the news cycle again and again.
The key is to have no intellectual shame.
At the launch, one of the accompanying slide packs looked at inequalities http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/conferences/hbai2016/ahood_income inequality2016.pdf
This showed that inequality had decreased - looking at the ratio between 9th and 1st deciles. However the last graph showed that at the same time a large growth in the income of the top 1%.
This is probably more a global phenomenon and more difficult to address than the more national decile ratios (is it is easier for government to make 98% of the population more equal than the remaining 2%).
You missed an S
British farmers are very sharp, and entrepreneurial, and I think they will thrive on the global market.
For example, they will probably grow less rape but produce more wine, organic vegetables, British beef and pork, and the like.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403381/SID-2014-revised-UNDP-figure-feb15.pdf
Page 41.
Now, I guess it's theoretically possible that only the UK pays into the "Other" pot (which totals about £5bn). And therefore it makes up the difference between £250m/week and £350m.
But it's not very likely.
It seems almost any argument is seen by them as valid if it is in favour of the EU. Like Marxism, Europhilia has become a religion.
Charlie Falconer has (un)resigned* from the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet
(* delete as applicable)
But, honestly we live in the garden of Eden, don't we?
Edited extra bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZP4My2zNDU
On the other hand, the British food consumer is becoming more discerning and the globe has more people to feed than ever with growing middle classes across most of Asia, and potentially parts of Africa, demanding Western diets and luxuries.
British agriculture will become more high-end and thrive like never before.
Trump 44
Clinton 40
DK 16
More straws in the wind.
It's weird to see brexiteers banging on about the EU. Everything is seen through that prism - headbangers accept no discussion about the best way forward for Britain.
Some will accept posts under Corbyn, others will slink away quietly and hope for the best in future, others will talk of unifying after the members have spoken and hope that saves them, and the end result will be no more than a few hardcore recalcitrant. Beaten down. Can't speak for the highlands, but ditto on the English countryside. It's so gosh darn green and pleasant, this land.
This is heaven. This is the afterlife.
So in fact it is vitally important the discussion is had, and all voices are valid even if they were on the losing side of the vote on the principle of Brexit. Because that is all it was, a vote on the principle of it, like outline planning permission. Shutting down discussion on the details would itself be illegitimate.
Honestly this is the Tories fault - as a Leaver myself I am very interested in what version of Leave they will go for, and the leadership contest was going to be a key way of determining that, and they short cutted it. Some Remainers and Leavers may have common cause now for a start.
But they also must accept that it will be a variety of Leave.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a losing side having opinions and voicing them about the future way forward, or indeed in this case fighting for in their view the least damaging version of Brexit that is achievable. 'Your side lost' is amazingly lazy as a counter argument, and is nonsense to boot - we did not have the discussion about what version of Brexit would be taken, only that Brexit would happen and there were an array of possibilities arising from it. Any insistence that the discussion on the type of Brexit has been had is factually incorrect.
So in fact it is vitally important the discussion is had, and all voices are valid even if they were on the losing side of the vote on the principle of Brexit. Because that is all it was, a vote on the principle of it, like outline planning permission. Shutting down discussion on the details would itself be illegitimate.
Honestly this is the Tories fault - as a Leaver myself I am very interested in what version of Leave they will go for, and the leadership contest was going to be a key way of determining that, and they short cutted it.
------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in any rational contributions to a discussion about how best to implement Brexit.
But that's not what we're getting. We are just getting bucket loads of existential angst, insults and petulant demands for a re-run from the Remain side.
At this point, they are simply not worth engaging with (as Brexiteers far more eminent than myself, who have tried to engage with them in recent weeks, are discovering).
If we get the Brexit lite that's being reported in the press, I fail to see the problem for most remainers. What's their objection?
Found the Cross Tabs for the CNN/ORC poll mentioned in the thread header
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
18-34 N/A
We'll also be able to negotiate some juicy trade deals not available to other EU countries, so what's not to like for a remainer?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/theresa-may-is-preparing-a-brexit-fudge-which-will-disappoint-ev/