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.
I thought Boris, Davis and Fox were tasked with the negotiations. Who do you think are conducting the 'real negotiations'?
They did poll them, but didn't get enough responses for a statistically significant subsample. Look at "all Americans" for the favourability ratings and you'll see them present.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
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.
How credible is it going to be that we get that though? Works for me, but it just seems off with Davis leading the Brexit department, I thought he was one of the more HardBrexiteers, and if May pushes for Lite why would he accept the role?
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.
How credible is it going to be that we get that though? Works for me, but it just seems off with Davis leading the Brexit department, I thought he was one of the more HardBrexiteers, and if May pushes for Lite why would he accept the role?
I wouldn't bother taking anything Surbiton says very seriously.
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.
Boris, maybe, but Hannan prefers EFTA over EFTA/EEA.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
They have a line to walk too of course - it doesn't serve them to insist upon a hard deal which hits them too, but there are dangers to a deal which is seen to benefit us 'unfairly'. Depends how much pain they want to take on by taking a hard line.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
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.
.
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.
FWIW, I don't think Vote Leave thought they had a serious chance until the last 6-8 weeks (they thought it was a two-step job) and the Government clearly thought there wasn't a cat's chance in hell of a Leave vote until very late in the day, so neither side had done much serious thinking about it until very late in the day.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 16m16 minutes ago .@SarahChampionMP sent her 'unresignation' email to JC on Thursday. Took a full 5 days for his team to find it, one party source says.
Rupert Myers usually writes from a REMOANER perspective so anything he writes need to be regarded in that light. Pasty Scott could you try reading thoughts from LEAVErs for a change?
"If America jumps into the abyss with President Donald Trump, the world will look to the EU for leadership" "The greatest tragedy of Brexit is the death of David Cameron's modernisation agenda" "The Brexiteers are having so much fun that sometimes I wish I could join them" "Brexiteers must stop whining and realise David Cameron is playing to win "
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
The EU have moved from no cherry picking with a four year brake on in-work benefits to full access and a seven year absolute exemption on FoM.
That suggests that they lack a little confidence in their ability to survive outside the UK Single Market.
And as for all of them rolling out the red carpet for the City of London; it's like a world class footballer potentially becoming available and 27 clubs imagining he will sign for them, only for them to get past the initial rush of adrenaline and realise that it will not happen for 26 of them.
From today, Luxembourg wants to partner, not rival, London;
"I hear the French say they would roll out the red carpet -- but they are always on strike," Etienne Schneider, the Grand Duchy's deputy prime minister, told Reuters.
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.
In the referendum it was quoted that the UK via the CAP £3.5bn to farmers and elsewhere it is quoted that UK GDP from agriculture is just under £3bn. That is a massive share of their income in subsidies if correct. Most probably goes to large estates?
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
The EU have moved from no cherry picking with a four year brake on in-work benefits to full access and a seven year absolute exemption on FoM.
That suggests that they lack a little confidence in their ability to survive outside the UK Single Market.
And as for all of them rolling out the red carpet for the City of London; it's like a world class footballer potentially becoming available and 27 clubs imagining he will sign for them, only for them to get past the initial rush of adrenaline and realise that it will not happen for 26 of them.
From today, Luxembourg wants to partner, not rival, London;
"I hear the French say they would roll out the red carpet -- but they are always on strike," Etienne Schneider, the Grand Duchy's deputy prime minister, told Reuters.
In the service of accuracy, the EU have done no such thing. A couple of peripheral figures have mooted a 7 year emergency brake. That's a point of discussion for some British officials, but it's simply preliminary skirmishing. Nobody of any actual importance has said anything.
EEA/EFTA is quite likely but a one off brake on free movement won't cut the mustard.
I'd have thought it'd have to be a right to pull the brake whenever we choose to do so, when inward migration exceeded a certain threshold.
Its barely a month since the referendum and we have already got a seven year moratorium on free movement and continued EEA/EEFTA
I dont think it would be difficult to up that to 10. What the remainers dont get is that the EU are far more worried about a future without us than we are. We are a funder and a powerful stabilising influence.
Lets take that offer. After 7/10 years we will have trade deals with RoW sorted and can then decide what to do. Ie leave as is, renegotiate a new deal or leave EFTA.
Visas for any EU citizens in peacetime are unthinkable and to be frank not something I want to see.
So lets take this. Join EFTA/EEA, repatriate our farms and fisheries, repatriate powers to parliament and from the ECJ to our supreme court. Secure free trade and play a full part in the commonwealth again.
It is not the time to kick Europe in the nuts, if we destabilise them and authoritarian governments result, it is us who will have to sort the mess out.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
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.
In the referendum it was quoted that the UK via the CAP £3.5bn to farmers and elsewhere it is quoted that UK GDP from agriculture is just under £3bn. That is a massive share of their income in subsidies if correct. Most probably goes to large estates?
Isn't there a cap on the maximum payout, so subsidies plateau at a certain farm siz?
EEA/EFTA is quite likely but a one off brake on free movement won't cut the mustard.
I'd have thought it'd have to be a right to pull the brake whenever we choose to do so, when inward migration exceeded a certain threshold.
Its barely a month since the referendum and we have already got a seven year moratorium on free movement and continued EEA/EEFTA
I dont think it would be difficult to up that to 10. What the remainers dont get is that the EU are far more worried about a future without us than we are. We are a funder and a powerful stabilising influence.
Lets take that offer. After 7/10 years we will have trade deals with RoW sorted and can then decide what to do. Ie leave as is, renegotiate a new deal or leave EFTA.
Visas for any EU citizens in peacetime are unthinkable and to be frank not something I want to see.
So lets take this. Join EFTA/EEA, repatriate our farms and fisheries, repatriate powers to parliament and from the ECJ to our supreme court. Secure free trade and play a full part in the commonwealth again.
It is not the time to kick Europe in the nuts, if we destabilise them and authoritarian governments result, it is us who will have to sort the mess out.
It's really remarkable how ill-informed much of the public debate on Brexit options remains. Much of it continues to repeat canards and outright falsehoods daily.
The depth of ignorance about the nature of the EEA, how international trade actually works etc. is staggering. The depth of ignorance about how negotiations work, even more so.
EEA/EFTA is quite likely but a one off brake on free movement won't cut the mustard.
I'd have thought it'd have to be a right to pull the brake whenever we choose to do so, when inward migration exceeded a certain threshold.
Its barely a month since the referendum and we have already got a seven year moratorium on free movement and continued EEA/EEFTA
I dont think it would be difficult to up that to 10. What the remainers dont get is that the EU are far more worried about a future without us than we are. We are a funder and a powerful stabilising influence.
Lets take that offer. After 7/10 years we will have trade deals with RoW sorted and can then decide what to do. Ie leave as is, renegotiate a new deal or leave EFTA.
Visas for any EU citizens in peacetime are unthinkable and to be frank not something I want to see.
So lets take this. Join EFTA/EEA, repatriate our farms and fisheries, repatriate powers to parliament and from the ECJ to our supreme court. Secure free trade and play a full part in the commonwealth again.
It is not the time to kick Europe in the nuts, if we destabilise them and authoritarian governments result, it is us who will have to sort the mess out.
If the EU was the dog's bollocks, it wouldn't have to threaten members that were thinking of leaving with a punishment beating behind the bike sheds if they chose to do so.
I know two individuals who Juncker 'won over' to our side.
One more who decided to plump for Leave after Obama hit him in the solar plexus.
In the service of accuracy, the EU have done no such thing. A couple of peripheral figures have mooted a 7 year emergency brake. That's a point of discussion for some British officials, but it's simply preliminary skirmishing. Nobody of any actual importance has said anything.
The Germans have also been briefing that the EU negotiating position is 'absurd' via Reuters. They say that the negotiation timescale is far too short.
Couple that up with the Guardian's report from "Senior British and EU sources" and a picture seems to be developing.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
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.
In the referendum it was quoted that the UK via the CAP £3.5bn to farmers and elsewhere it is quoted that UK GDP from agriculture is just under £3bn. That is a massive share of their income in subsidies if correct. Most probably goes to large estates?
I thought Blair gave back a fair amount of our rebate in exchange for reform of the CAP?
@tnewtondunn: I'm told it is Frank Field's use of the word 'plunder' that Philip Green has taken legal exception to. Not Napoleon. https://t.co/GfJU8heqI7
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
I'm not personally that bothered by FoM. I think objectively speaking that migration of low paid workers to take low paid work that is unviable without benefits or living four to a bedsit needs sorting but the seven years moratorium that seems to be on offer gives us plenty of time to think through what to do.
What that will be will depend on how successful we are in RoW trade viz european trade and whether the immigration is still an issue then.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
I don't think that's actually true. Remember that very few cars are made solely in the UK (Nissan and a few other things).
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Edit to add: what I mean is, yes, the German car industry would be affected, but so would a bunch of other car makers. And the major consequence would be a smaller UK car market as the price of cars would be generally higher.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
I think it's a further example of the sense of superiority of the metropolitan liberals. There's no humility, no empathy and no room for compromise. If you don't agree with their consensus you are an idiot, or a racist or a -phobe of some variety.
People often hark back to some mythical Golden Age, but I do think there's a grain of truth in the idea that we've lost the art of polite discourse and civilised argument in the cause of persuasion. It's much simpler to simply pick a side and start slinging insults.
In the service of accuracy, the EU have done no such thing. A couple of peripheral figures have mooted a 7 year emergency brake. That's a point of discussion for some British officials, but it's simply preliminary skirmishing. Nobody of any actual importance has said anything.
The Germans have also been briefing that the EU negotiating position is 'absurd' via Reuters. They say that the negotiation timescale is far too short.
Couple that up with the Guardian's report from "Senior British and EU sources" and a picture seems to be developing.
The EU's near £100bn surplus is in play.
Yeah, but they have a 100bn surplus to play with.
Edit to add: interestingly, if Germany was particularly disadvantaged by our exit, it could actually rebalance the Eurozone. Remember that one of the big problems is the unbalances caused by Germany running a huge surplus. If Germany no longer runs such a large surplus, it makes rebalancing through the rest of the EZ much easier. We could inadvertantly rebalance the EZ.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
I'm not personally that bothered by FoM. I think objectively speaking that migration of low paid workers to take low paid work that is unviable without benefits or living four to a bedsit needs sorting but the seven years moratorium that seems to be on offer gives us plenty of time to think through what to do.
What that will be will depend on how successful we are in RoW trade viz european trade and whether the immigration is still an issue then.
As - even with FoM - there will be no in-work benefits for migrants, one would expect there to be significantly fewer of them even in an EFTA/EEA scenario.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
I don't think that's actually true. Remember that very few cars are made solely in the UK (Nissan and a few other things).
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Surely the bigger issue would be supply chain management. The EU auto sector is hugely integrated, the supply chain for UK vehicle manufacturing is 50/50, import substitution isn't going to cut it in the short term and our domestic market isn't large enough to sustain 3m assembly and 80-90% of the supply chain. Even if we agree trade deals to sell cars outside of the EU we'll need to get a deal with the EU sorted out for our supply chain.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
I don't think that's actually true. Remember that very few cars are made solely in the UK (Nissan and a few other things).
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Surely the bigger issue would be supply chain management. The EU auto sector is hugely integrated, the supply chain for UK vehicle manufacturing is 50/50, import substitution isn't going to cut it in the short term and our domestic market isn't large enough to sustain 3m assembly and 80-90% of the supply chain. Even if we agree trade deals to sell cars outside of the EU we'll need to get a deal with the EU sorted out for our supply chain.
That's absolutely right; and we need to avoid tariffs becoming "stacked": iron ore to the UK incurs a tariff... steel from UK to French engine manufacture incurs a tariff... engine to Sunderland incurs a tariff... Nissan from Sunderland to Denmark incurs a tariff.
@tnewtondunn: I'm told it is Frank Field's use of the word 'plunder' that Philip Green has taken legal exception to. Not Napoleon. https://t.co/GfJU8heqI7
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
I'm not personally that bothered by FoM. I think objectively speaking that migration of low paid workers to take low paid work that is unviable without benefits or living four to a bedsit needs sorting but the seven years moratorium that seems to be on offer gives us plenty of time to think through what to do.
What that will be will depend on how successful we are in RoW trade viz european trade and whether the immigration is still an issue then.
As - even with FoM - there will be no in-work benefits for migrants, one would expect there to be significantly fewer of them even in an EFTA/EEA scenario.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
If you assume a majority of remainers are ok with FoM (which some won't be, but if they wanted to Remain, would have accepted) and some proportion of Leavers are also ok with it in some form (which we know some are, even if they are not a large proportion) then 60-40 being satisfied with that sort of deal is plausible even if not totally likely.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
Except Leave had senior political and media supporters, and so were not facing a united establishment, unless we accept the nonsense definition of the establishment people like to use which tends to include those who disagree with them from the elite, but not those they agree with in teh elite.
Mr. 43, if there is a second Scottish referendum and they vote to Leave, I suspect the divorce will be far more acrimonious than it would've been in 2014.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
MD , apart from lots of bluster and insults from the bigots on each side, it will be done in an adult fashion to each others mutual benefit.
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
Lots of gambling firms in Gibralter as well, neither of those would be unpleasant and far better weather for sure.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
A less charitable interpretation is that it is about the 10 per cent rich Leavers fooling the 40 per cent other Leavers.
Wanted: Less immigrant competition for jobs and stop the psychic pain of living in modern society. Got: Even more deregulated capitalism and continuing free movement.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
A less charitable interpretation is that it is about the 10 per cent rich Leavers fooling the 40 per cent other Leavers.
Wanted: Less immigrant competition for jobs and stop the psychic pain of living in modern society. Got: Even more deregulated capitalism and continuing free movement.
The ultimate problem is that the competition for jobs is an inevitable consequence of globalisation; freedom of movement just makes it more obvious. Putting up own trade barriers - as advocated by Donald Trumo and as I explained in The Discontented - won't help.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
A less charitable interpretation is that it is about the 10 per cent rich Leavers fooling the 40 per cent other Leavers.
Wanted: Less immigrant competition for jobs and stop the psychic pain of living in modern society. Got: Even more deregulated capitalism and continuing free movement.
The ultimate problem is that the competition for jobs is an inevitable consequence of globalisation; freedom of movement just makes it more obvious. Putting up own trade barriers - as advocated by Donald Trumo and as I explained in The Discontented - won't help.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
I don't think that's actually true. Remember that very few cars are made solely in the UK (Nissan and a few other things).
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Edit to add: what I mean is, yes, the German car industry would be affected, but so would a bunch of other car makers. And the major consequence would be a smaller UK car market as the price of cars would be generally higher.
I was in my local BMW last Saturday and it was FULL of people. I tell you even a 10% tariff will make a small dent to their exports to the UK. Which other car could I buy ? Mercedes ? Audi ? You get the drift.
Those who go on talking about the EU trade surplus forget one simple fact: EU exports to the UK is about 3% of the EU GDP. UK exports to the EU is about 10% of our GDP.
Plus many of the East Europeans do not much exports to the UK, but FoM is important to them. They will want their pound of flesh.
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
The EU have moved from no cherry picking with a four year brake on in-work benefits to full access and a seven year absolute exemption on FoM.
That suggests that they lack a little confidence in their ability to survive outside the UK Single Market.
And as for all of them rolling out the red carpet for the City of London; it's like a world class footballer potentially becoming available and 27 clubs imagining he will sign for them, only for them to get past the initial rush of adrenaline and realise that it will not happen for 26 of them.
From today, Luxembourg wants to partner, not rival, London;
"I hear the French say they would roll out the red carpet -- but they are always on strike," Etienne Schneider, the Grand Duchy's deputy prime minister, told Reuters.
In the service of accuracy, the EU have done no such thing. A couple of peripheral figures have mooted a 7 year emergency brake. That's a point of discussion for some British officials, but it's simply preliminary skirmishing. Nobody of any actual importance has said anything.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
Except Leave had senior political and media supporters, and so were not facing a united establishment, unless we accept the nonsense definition of the establishment people like to use which tends to include those who disagree with them from the elite, but not those they agree with in teh elite.
This was a glorious victory by the old Telegraph reading establishment against the ghastly Guardian reading new Liberal establishment that crawled out of the woodwork in the 1960s
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal (Peuto Rican and Cuban), Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters in Florida.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is worrying and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
I think it's a further example of the sense of superiority of the metropolitan liberals. There's no humility, no empathy and no room for compromise. If you don't agree with their consensus you are an idiot, or a racist or a -phobe of some variety.
People often hark back to some mythical Golden Age, but I do think there's a grain of truth in the idea that we've lost the art of polite discourse and civilised argument in the cause of persuasion. It's much simpler to simply pick a side and start slinging insults.
Arrogant bastards versus snake oil salesmen? But the snake oil salesmen at least care enough about you to want your business. Maybe something in that. Neither side came out of the referendum with credit.
Mr. 43, if there is a second Scottish referendum and they vote to Leave, I suspect the divorce will be far more acrimonious than it would've been in 2014.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
MD , apart from lots of bluster and insults from the bigots on each side, it will be done in an adult fashion to each others mutual benefit.
Scotland in history always preferred France to union with England and is simply reverting to type.
Mr. 43, if there is a second Scottish referendum and they vote to Leave, I suspect the divorce will be far more acrimonious than it would've been in 2014.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
MD , apart from lots of bluster and insults from the bigots on each side, it will be done in an adult fashion to each others mutual benefit.
Scotland in history always preferred France to union with England and is simply reverting to type.
I'd give Scotland a SIndy II referendum in a heartbeat, with the proviso that any areas that voted against Independence would automatically be ceded to England. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal (Peuto Rican and Cuban), Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters in Florida.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is worrying and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
Hmmm: one of my former colleagues is a fairly prominent Hispanic Floridian Republican. Obviously, he was a vocal Jeb Bush supporter, and is a loyal Republican. In private he tells me (and other people he used to work with) he could never vote for someone who'd put back Hispanic relations 50 years*.
* Disclaimer: these are ex and current Goldman Sachs people, and aren't that well disposed towards Trump, so he could be playing to his audience. But I doubt it.
@tnewtondunn: I'm told it is Frank Field's use of the word 'plunder' that Philip Green has taken legal exception to. Not Napoleon. https://t.co/GfJU8heqI7
[Joke]
Oh, I thought it was his use of the word 'cock'.
[/Joke]
To be fair, given that Field described him as "much worse" than Maxwell I (for once!) have a tiny bit of sympathy for Green. Maxwell took money out of the pension fund. Green didn't put in enough to cover for the impact of low yields balooning the deficit. There's a fundamental difference
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
The parallels with the EU Referendum continue.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
I think it's a further example of the sense of superiority of the metropolitan liberals. There's no humility, no empathy and no room for compromise. If you don't agree with their consensus you are an idiot, or a racist or a -phobe of some variety.
People often hark back to some mythical Golden Age, but I do think there's a grain of truth in the idea that we've lost the art of polite discourse and civilised argument in the cause of persuasion. It's much simpler to simply pick a side and start slinging insults.
Arrogant bastards versus snake oil salesmen? But the snake oil salesmen at least care enough about you to want your business. Maybe something in that. Neither side came out of the referendum with credit.
I think most people sussed that and just voted for what they want.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Would you say that Brexiteers on PB are predominantly also Trump supporters?
Mr. 43, if there is a second Scottish referendum and they vote to Leave, I suspect the divorce will be far more acrimonious than it would've been in 2014.
It won't be a case of 'we dislike the UK' or even 'we like the UK and want to be friends but want to be separate'. It'll be seen, understandably as 'we prefer the EU to the UK'.
MD , apart from lots of bluster and insults from the bigots on each side, it will be done in an adult fashion to each others mutual benefit.
Scotland in history always preferred France to union with England and is simply reverting to type.
I'd give Scotland a SIndy II referendum in a heartbeat, with the proviso that any areas that voted against Independence would automatically be ceded to England. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Especially Berwick. Oh, we have already got that. Silly me.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
The question is not: will there be Hispanic and Black Trump voters? but will - as a result of his lazy caricatures - Trump get a smaller share of the Hispanic and Black vote than he might have?
My belief - and it could be wrong - is that Trump has put New Mexico and Nevada out of reach. He stands a good chance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, which might make it all work. I suspect he'll fall short in Florida.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Trump is not Brexit. There is 40 years of evidence to suggest that black people do not vote for Republicans in great numbers at practically any level. There's also polls, which are better in the USA than the UK, suggesting he does as poorly among ethnic minorities as Romney, who was no great shakes. Folks remember that Trump returned to political prominence (after his gadfly 2000 Reform Party business) by suggesting the first black president was an illegal lying usurper.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Would you say that Brexiteers on PB are predominantly also Trump supporters?
With the caveat that PB Brexiteers aren't representative of Leave by any stretch of the imagination. I can see the attractions of Trump's messages for some Americans but he would be a terrible, terrible President.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Would you say that Brexiteers on PB are predominantly also Trump supporters?
50-50 I would say.
But then the choice in the US election is like trying to decide whether it would be better to have Stalin and Hitler occupy your country.
But the important thing is that people dont all vote based on their race thinking I am a hispanic so I must vote hilary. A fair few will think Im not voting for that ghastly liberal baby eater hilary so its Donald for me.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
If you assume a majority of remainers are ok with FoM (which some won't be, but if they wanted to Remain, would have accepted) and some proportion of Leavers are also ok with it in some form (which we know some are, even if they are not a large proportion) then 60-40 being satisfied with that sort of deal is plausible even if not totally likely.
The equation is simple:
I don't see why the 48.3% Remainers will not accept EEA now.
Of the 51.7% Brexiters, not every one was against FoM. Many talked about just sovereignty and all that gumph.
So, lets take just 25% of the Brexiters who will take the Single Market [ with some modification ] and FoM [ with some modification. I don't think either side would get all.
So, 48.3% + 25% of 51.7% = 48.3% + 12.92% = 61.2%
There is a fly in the ointment. T May. I believe she is and was a Brexiter but according to the received wisdom at the time , she sided with Remain , just ! Her only speech during the campaign was hardly a ringing endorsement of Remain.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
If you assume a majority of remainers are ok with FoM (which some won't be, but if they wanted to Remain, would have accepted) and some proportion of Leavers are also ok with it in some form (which we know some are, even if they are not a large proportion) then 60-40 being satisfied with that sort of deal is plausible even if not totally likely.
The equation is simple:
I don't see why the 48.3% Remainers will not accept EEA now.
Of the 51.7% Brexiters, not every one was against FoM. Many talked about just sovereignty and all that gumph.
So, lets take just 25% of the Brexiters who will take the Single Market [ with some modification ] and FoM [ with some modification. I don't think either side would get all.
So, 48.3% + 25% of 51.7% = 48.3% + 12.92% = 61.2%
There is a fly in the ointment. T May. I believe she is and was a Brexiter but according to the received wisdom at the time , she sided with Remain , just ! Her only speech during the campaign was hardly a ringing endorsement of Remain.
Hence my thinking it may not be likely - I think it would be possible to sell such a deal to a majority, but I'm far from certain May herself either wants that option or if she does is willing to take on the fight it would take to get it (a leadership contest with one offering that and the other hard brexit would have been interesting), and so she will go for hitherto unknown Brexit medium.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
If you assume a majority of remainers are ok with FoM (which some won't be, but if they wanted to Remain, would have accepted) and some proportion of Leavers are also ok with it in some form (which we know some are, even if they are not a large proportion) then 60-40 being satisfied with that sort of deal is plausible even if not totally likely.
The equation is simple:
I don't see why the 48.3% Remainers will not accept EEA now.
You may be imputing too much rationality to REMAIN voters - "This is like the EU, therefore I will choose this". In reality, REMAIN voters might feel alienated and refrain from giving any Brexit option their audible support, letting the population control side have the run of it against EEA. Of course, they could also be hyper-rational gambling wreckers who want to continue the current limbo of 95 per cent EU membership.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
If you assume a majority of remainers are ok with FoM (which some won't be, but if they wanted to Remain, would have accepted) and some proportion of Leavers are also ok with it in some form (which we know some are, even if they are not a large proportion) then 60-40 being satisfied with that sort of deal is plausible even if not totally likely.
The equation is simple:
I don't see why the 48.3% Remainers will not accept EEA now.
Of the 51.7% Brexiters, not every one was against FoM. Many talked about just sovereignty and all that gumph.
So, lets take just 25% of the Brexiters who will take the Single Market [ with some modification ] and FoM [ with some modification. I don't think either side would get all.
So, 48.3% + 25% of 51.7% = 48.3% + 12.92% = 61.2%
There is a fly in the ointment. T May. I believe she is and was a Brexiter but according to the received wisdom at the time , she sided with Remain , just ! Her only speech during the campaign was hardly a ringing endorsement of Remain.
Hence my thinking it may not be likely - I think it would be possible to sell such a deal to a majority, but I'm far from certain May herself either wants that option or if she does is willing to take on the fight it would take to get it (a leadership contest with one offering that and the other hard brexit would have been interesting), and so she will go for hitherto unknown Brexit medium.
She dosent need to sell it to the majority, she needs to sell it to enough people to get a good majority in the 2020 election and the rest not so pissed off with the outcome that they cause trouble. Eg the scotnats.
That means EEA/EFTA and some bones on freedom of movement which as robert has pointed out EEA/EFTA means no benefits for EU migrants the bone dosent need to be a big meaty one.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
The question is not: will there be Hispanic and Black Trump voters? but will - as a result of his lazy caricatures - Trump get a smaller share of the Hispanic and Black vote than he might have?
My belief - and it could be wrong - is that Trump has put New Mexico and Nevada out of reach. He stands a good chance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, which might make it all work. I suspect he'll fall short in Florida.
I cannot see him win in NJ and PA. New Jersey will need over 8% swing compared to 2012. PA will need close to 3%.
Why would those WWC who voted for Obama not vote for Hillary Clinton ? Ohio was close, so it is difficult to argue.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal (Peuto Rican and Cuban), Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters in Florida.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is worrying and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
Hmmm: one of my former colleagues is a fairly prominent Hispanic Floridian Republican. Obviously, he was a vocal Jeb Bush supporter, and is a loyal Republican. In private he tells me (and other people he used to work with) he could never vote for someone who'd put back Hispanic relations 50 years*.
* Disclaimer: these are ex and current Goldman Sachs people, and aren't that well disposed towards Trump, so he could be playing to his audience. But I doubt it.
You're disclaimer is very worrying for anyone who fears a Trump POTUS, especially since he is not even trying to get their support and is actively trying to put them off and support Hillary, they are toxic to his cause.Everyone keeps saying with absolute certainty that Brexit is SO different from Trump as the demographics mean he just can't win, unless the world has been turned on its head. Newsflash, the world HAS been turned on its head.
Also Democrats are relying on 92% of African Americans to win. Just a 2% swing to Trump and it is over for Hillary, they won't turn out for Hillary as they did for Obama even with Bill Clinton, they just won't.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal. Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is wording and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
I suspect hispanics and blacks wont vote for Trump is as ludicrous a sentiment as asians and blacks in the UK wont vote Brexit was.
Would you say that Brexiteers on PB are predominantly also Trump supporters?
''The crippling loss of influence with Slovenia.''
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
The German auto industry cannot afford a full divorce.
I don't think that's actually true. Remember that very few cars are made solely in the UK (Nissan and a few other things).
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Edit to add: what I mean is, yes, the German car industry would be affected, but so would a bunch of other car makers. And the major consequence would be a smaller UK car market as the price of cars would be generally higher.
I was in my local BMW last Saturday and it was FULL of people. I tell you even a 10% tariff will make a small dent to their exports to the UK. Which other car could I buy ? Mercedes ? Audi ? You get the drift.
Those who go on talking about the EU trade surplus forget one simple fact: EU exports to the UK is about 3% of the EU GDP. UK exports to the EU is about 10% of our GDP.
Plus many of the East Europeans do not much exports to the UK, but FoM is important to them. They will want their pound of flesh.
The Germans have downgraded their auto-exports expectation from 5% growth to a 1% fall this year. Their internal feedback is of a 30% reduction in UK footfall.
My belief - and it could be wrong - is that Trump has put New Mexico and Nevada out of reach. He stands a good chance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, which might make it all work. I suspect he'll fall short in Florida.
Losing Florida would be a hammer blow for Trump. Wisconsin and New Jersey are most unlikely and even if you add Ohio, Pennsylvania and Iowa for Trump, he still falls short 288/250.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
Personally I don't believe the number "wanting" remain was anything close to 48%, there was a large chunk of very reluctant remainers in there that were either loyal to the government, or convinced by Project Fear, with the FTSE and FTSE250 both well above where they were pre-BrExit the doom and gloom is going to be a pretty hard sell now.
My belief - and it could be wrong - is that Trump has put New Mexico and Nevada out of reach. He stands a good chance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, which might make it all work. I suspect he'll fall short in Florida.
Losing Florida would be a hammer blow for Trump. Wisconsin and New Jersey are most unlikely and even if you add Ohio, Pennsylvania and Iowa for Trump, he still falls short 288/250.
Re Florida: The Hispanics here are more right wing and won't be affected by Trumps wall rhetoric as they are legal (Peuto Rican and Cuban), Also Republicans had 1 million more people voting in their primary than the Democratic primary. That is a huge difference considering Obama only beat Romney by 73,000 voters in Florida.
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is worrying and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
Hmmm: one of my former colleagues is a fairly prominent Hispanic Floridian Republican. Obviously, he was a vocal Jeb Bush supporter, and is a loyal Republican. In private he tells me (and other people he used to work with) he could never vote for someone who'd put back Hispanic relations 50 years*.
* Disclaimer: these are ex and current Goldman Sachs people, and aren't that well disposed towards Trump, so he could be playing to his audience. But I doubt it.
You're disclaimer is very worrying for anyone who fears a Trump POTUS, especially since he is not even trying to get their support and is actively trying to put them off and support Hillary, they are toxic to his cause.Everyone keeps saying with absolute certainty that Brexit is SO different from Trump as the demographics mean he just can't win, unless the world has been turned on its head. Newsflash, the world HAS been turned on its head.
Also Democrats are relying on 92% of African Americans to win. Just a 2% swing to Trump and it is over for Hillary, they won't turn out for Hillary as they did for Obama even with Bill Clinton, they just won't.
The people I personally know who voted Remain did not do it for anything relating to grand trade arrangements. It was more about family heritage and property.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
Possibly immigration WAS the main concern - although polls showed the biggest reason for voting leave was the ability to make our own decisions. I would guess there are at least 20% of Leavers - probably more - who aren't that bothered about FoM. Add these to the Remainers, all but the most petulant of whom would be expected to support such a deal against an alternative of a WTO deal, and you get your 60%+.
Does potentially mean 40% for Steve Woolfe's merry men though.
Whatever agreement is reached between the UK and the EU has to be agreed by the greatest possible proportion of the country. We have decided on Exit, and it incumbent on the government to find the version of Exit that is best for the economy, and satisfies the greatest number of people possible. This is not about 51% of 51%; this is about finding something acceptable to 65% of all the the people.
Personally I don't believe the number "wanting" remain was anything close to 48%, there was a large chunk of very reluctant remainers in there that were either loyal to the government, or convinced by Project Fear, with the FTSE and FTSE250 both well above where they were pre-BrExit the doom and gloom is going to be a pretty hard sell now.
Comments
If I was the EU, I'd insist on a full divorce. With the brexit lite arrangement, Britain is only going to get stronger economically relative to most of the rest, yet will still retain its independence.
Probably 15-30 more likely
It is interesting to consider how many will actually jump ship (assuming Corbyn wins).
French farmers are about to be buggered either way, although perhaps not fully so for a couple of years post actual Brexit.
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13631660_1383959551620391_5950136448548922041_n.jpg?oh=8dc1169f45fb059f08ac2ed53cfe529e&oe=5827CC28
This really has no place in serious politics, but surely it - and others like it - will have an effect.
But, that's no excuse.
I'd have thought it'd have to be a right to pull the brake whenever we choose to do so, when inward migration exceeded a certain threshold.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 16m16 minutes ago
.@SarahChampionMP sent her 'unresignation' email to JC on Thursday. Took a full 5 days for his team to find it, one party source says.
"If America jumps into the abyss with President Donald Trump, the world will look to the EU for leadership"
"The greatest tragedy of Brexit is the death of David Cameron's modernisation agenda"
"The Brexiteers are having so much fun that sometimes I wish I could join them"
"Brexiteers must stop whining and realise David Cameron is playing to win "
That suggests that they lack a little confidence in their ability to survive outside the UK Single Market.
And as for all of them rolling out the red carpet for the City of London; it's like a world class footballer potentially becoming available and 27 clubs imagining he will sign for them, only for them to get past the initial rush of adrenaline and realise that it will not happen for 26 of them.
From today, Luxembourg wants to partner, not rival, London;
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-luxembourg-idUKKCN1051O5?il=0
"I hear the French say they would roll out the red carpet -- but they are always on strike," Etienne Schneider, the Grand Duchy's deputy prime minister, told Reuters.
That is a massive share of their income in subsidies if correct. Most probably goes to large estates?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/heathrow-passport-security-cannot-cope-as-border-staff-reportedl/
I dont think it would be difficult to up that to 10. What the remainers dont get is that the EU are far more worried about a future without us than we are. We are a funder and a powerful stabilising influence.
Lets take that offer. After 7/10 years we will have trade deals with RoW sorted and can then decide what to do. Ie leave as is, renegotiate a new deal or leave EFTA.
Visas for any EU citizens in peacetime are unthinkable and to be frank not something I want to see.
So lets take this. Join EFTA/EEA, repatriate our farms and fisheries, repatriate powers to parliament and from the ECJ to our supreme court. Secure free trade and play a full part in the commonwealth again.
It is not the time to kick Europe in the nuts, if we destabilise them and authoritarian governments result, it is us who will have to sort the mess out.
As a Leaver I don't like comparing Leave with Trump, but I can see the similarities - an outsider no-one takes seriously versus the united, sneering forces of the establishment.
The depth of ignorance about the nature of the EEA, how international trade actually works etc. is staggering. The depth of ignorance about how negotiations work, even more so.
Meanwhile, the wheels are in motion...
I know two individuals who Juncker 'won over' to our side.
One more who decided to plump for Leave after Obama hit him in the solar plexus.
Couple that up with the Guardian's report from "Senior British and EU sources" and a picture seems to be developing.
The EU's near £100bn surplus is in play.
'EEA + FoM will win 60% - 40%. Hannan and Boris will be on our side.'
Having a laugh or just wishful thinking ?
You must have missed the key concern during the referendum campaign.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/757631276023033856
Such a reputation needs defending.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3746/Immigration-is-now-the-top-issue-for-voters-in-the-EU-referendum.aspx
Did that reform ever occur?
https://t.co/GfJU8heqI7
What that will be will depend on how successful we are in RoW trade viz european trade and whether the immigration is still an issue then.
If we left and went to WTO, the German car industry would be disadvantaged relative to indigenous car production. But our indihenous production would be disadvantaged in the EU. Furthermore, a lot of Fords, GMs, Toyotas, etc. are made in the EU. So, the major consequence of WTO would be that cars in general would probably be quite a bit more expensive.
Edit to add: what I mean is, yes, the German car industry would be affected, but so would a bunch of other car makers. And the major consequence would be a smaller UK car market as the price of cars would be generally higher.
People often hark back to some mythical Golden Age, but I do think there's a grain of truth in the idea that we've lost the art of polite discourse and civilised argument in the cause of persuasion. It's much simpler to simply pick a side and start slinging insults.
Edit to add: interestingly, if Germany was particularly disadvantaged by our exit, it could actually rebalance the Eurozone. Remember that one of the big problems is the unbalances caused by Germany running a huge surplus. If Germany no longer runs such a large surplus, it makes rebalancing through the rest of the EZ much easier. We could inadvertantly rebalance the EZ.
Does that mural look familiar?
Oh, I thought it was his use of the word 'cock'.
[/Joke]
Wanted: Less immigrant competition for jobs and stop the psychic pain of living in modern society. Got: Even more deregulated capitalism and continuing free movement.
ROFLMAO
PS: Need free access to some sunshine as well
Those who go on talking about the EU trade surplus forget one simple fact: EU exports to the UK is about 3% of the EU GDP. UK exports to the EU is about 10% of our GDP.
Plus many of the East Europeans do not much exports to the UK, but FoM is important to them. They will want their pound of flesh.
New ScotlandCanada.Whats not to like?
Also Republicans had more voters in their primary than Democratic party in Michigan. That is worrying and underlines Hillary's enthusiasm problem.
* Disclaimer: these are ex and current Goldman Sachs people, and aren't that well disposed towards Trump, so he could be playing to his audience. But I doubt it.
Time to duck and avoid flying turnips....
but
will - as a result of his lazy caricatures - Trump get a smaller share of the Hispanic and Black vote than he might have?
My belief - and it could be wrong - is that Trump has put New Mexico and Nevada out of reach. He stands a good chance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, which might make it all work. I suspect he'll fall short in Florida.
But then the choice in the US election is like trying to decide whether it would be better to have Stalin and Hitler occupy your country.
But the important thing is that people dont all vote based on their race thinking I am a hispanic so I must vote hilary. A fair few will think Im not voting for that ghastly liberal baby eater hilary so its Donald for me.
I don't see why the 48.3% Remainers will not accept EEA now.
Of the 51.7% Brexiters, not every one was against FoM. Many talked about just sovereignty and all that gumph.
So, lets take just 25% of the Brexiters who will take the Single Market [ with some modification ] and FoM [ with some modification. I don't think either side would get all.
So, 48.3% + 25% of 51.7% = 48.3% + 12.92% = 61.2%
There is a fly in the ointment. T May. I believe she is and was a Brexiter but according to the received wisdom at the time , she sided with Remain , just ! Her only speech during the campaign was hardly a ringing endorsement of Remain.
That means EEA/EFTA and some bones on freedom of movement which as robert has pointed out EEA/EFTA means no benefits for EU migrants the bone dosent need to be a big meaty one.
Why would those WWC who voted for Obama not vote for Hillary Clinton ? Ohio was close, so it is difficult to argue.
What makes you so sure about Florida ?
Also Democrats are relying on 92% of African Americans to win. Just a 2% swing to Trump and it is over for Hillary, they won't turn out for Hillary as they did for Obama even with Bill Clinton, they just won't.
Not me.
A brief reminder: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/bad-brexit-germany-auto-industry-083100977.html
The EU GDP thing you and others mention is dismissed as an irrelevance.
The EU (ex UK) is not a single country. It is 27 sets of vested interests and elected politicians that all have different things at stake.
In the end, the biggest and richest will yield the most influence.
New Mexico safe Dem.
Hillary is not anywhere near as popular as Obama.