"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
Just for the PB troll factor I really like this ' Jungian ' analysis of Clinton/Trump. Though to a British eye I read it via Remain/Leave. It's an optimistic take. Certainly the ' Shadow ' stage we're at is deeply unpleasant but it's only by bring thevShadow into consciousness that we can achieve psychic individuation. I suppose the risk for western democracies is we fail to individuate and become psychologically crippled. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-lid-is-off-transparency-in-the-age-of-transition/2016/10/18
It's Emerson though so basically random numbers from a hat ( landline only poller who then shifts results about 4 points to Dems to make up for lack of young people, no idea what they are doing in a 3 way)
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The suspect was wearing a Democratic pin and had a handwritten note from Hillary asking him to "fuck up the office and steal all the data". It later turned out that the suspect was Chelsea Clinton's ex-boyfriend and long-term family friend.
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
'kin hell, how crap is the Dems rig the ballot campaign if they can't make Hillary win Utah?
Yeah, those Republican Governors and Legislatures are pretty useless at fixing it for Hillary. They must be secret muslim mexican lizards or something.
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The suspect was wearing a Democratic pin and had a handwritten note from Hillary asking him to "fuck up the office and steal all the data". It later turned out that the suspect was Chelsea Clinton's ex-boyfriend and long-term family friend.
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
Bah, this is handwaving, from that article
Later, a spokesperson for the San Antonio Police Department said it did not appear the attempted break-in was politically motivated. Officers said the suspect has a history of breaking into buildings and there was no evidence he knew the office he was targeting was being used by the Trump campaign.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The suspect was wearing a Democratic pin and had a handwritten note from Hillary asking him to "fuck up the office and steal all the data". It later turned out that the suspect was Chelsea Clinton's ex-boyfriend and long-term family friend.
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
A last desperate roll of the dice in the face of Trump's unstoppable momentum.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
It seems the old PB favourite cliche of 'there's more heat than light' has been replaced by 'Tory support feels like a mile-wide and an inch-deep.'
Will probably last as long as that hopeless '2010 LDs will get Miliband into No. 10' meme we were listening to for several years in the last Parliament. I.e., until it is tested to destruction at an actual general election.
Interesting, over 400 EVCs would be huge and would probably have to include Texas, or at least would be easiest to achieve with Texas. It would probably mean Hillary eating up several of the Southern states.
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The suspect was wearing a Democratic pin and had a handwritten note from Hillary asking him to "fuck up the office and steal all the data". It later turned out that the suspect was Chelsea Clinton's ex-boyfriend and long-term family friend.
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
Bah, this is handwaving, from that article
Later, a spokesperson for the San Antonio Police Department said it did not appear the attempted break-in was politically motivated. Officers said the suspect has a history of breaking into buildings and there was no evidence he knew the office he was targeting was being used by the Trump campaign.
It's all about the long game with Hilary, getting Dem operatives in the 90s to become career burglars so they are plausibly deniable aasets if they were to get caught during her presidential bid.
Hmm, usually you have to seriously piss off Smitson snr to warrant proscription and no evidence of that. Wonder what heinous crime has been perpetrated....
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
"And Norway and Canada are very rich countries" with a low population density and colossal natural resources.
Hmm, usually you have to seriously piss off Smitson snr to warrant proscription and no evidence of that. Wonder what heinous crime has been perpetrated....
I think he accused Mike of ramping, repeatedly, which annoys Mike no end.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
All developed markets represent an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world. Globalisation is not an argument to abandon the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity in our immediate neighbourhood. This line of thinking displays an absurd complacency about our situation.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Hmm, usually you have to seriously piss off Smitson snr to warrant proscription and no evidence of that. Wonder what heinous crime has been perpetrated....
I think he accused Mike of ramping, repeatedly, which annoys Mike no end.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Indeed, we are one of very few EU countries with a trade deficit. An overvalued currency seems to be fine if people actually want to buy the products. I cannot see Britons turning away from imports very easily.
Carney is right at seeing a cold wind coming, though I am not convinced that further debasing the currency is wise*.
*for how that feels, click on my avatar. That note was swapped for a beer when I was in africa last.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
There is no upside and no economic case for Brexit. That's why Leave majored on immigration.
All things being equal, Brexit makes us poorer. And I think most of the Brexiters on here accept that.
The idea of a free trading, buccaneering Singapore of the North Atlantic doesn't hold. Nor does a deregulated, libertarian paradise.
And as you say, these models don't attract political support here anyway.
The best we can hope is that Brexit creates a shock to the system such that we revisit growth-harming shibboleths (infrastructure, education, regional disparities). No evidence of that yet. Indeed, with Heathrow, grammar schools, and lukewarm noises about the Northern Powerhouse, quite the reverse.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
All developed markets represent an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world. Globalisation is not an argument to abandon the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity in our immediate neighbourhood. This line of thinking displays an absurd complacency about our situation.
Without wishing to be impolite, I don't see any 'line of thinking' (in the preceding post) - just nice-sounding but unsupported aspirations (rather like one of Mrs May's speeches)
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The 'burglar' has since been apprehended. Described as blonde, 5'5" tall, female, wearing a pant suit, and aged between 60 and 70 years old of age, onlookers said she bore an uncanny resemblance to a well known politician. Police are said to have made 'sharp lateral hand movements' in the aftermath of the arrest.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Do you even follow football?
1) Ode to joy is the anthem of UEFA, which is nothing to do with the EU
2) Citeh have a long standing history of booing UEFA because of some frankly bizarre decisions by UEFA, the best one being charging Citeh for racially abusing the the footballer 'Hulk' because their fans chanted ' You're not incredible anymore'
I have followed football since 1953 being a Man Utd supporter through Munich to date and when moving to North Wales became a season ticket holder. As a child I attended every home game at Berwick Rangers and then on moving to Edinburgh in 1960 became a season ticket holder at Hibernian.
I think I may have a claim to have followed football
I'm a City fan and TSE is correct, nothing to do with the EU, all about UEFA
The LDs could try to play this role, but they need to give voters a reason to go with them.
They need to position themselves as a sane moderator of Tory hard Brexiteers, which they can't do if their policy is "Rejoin at all costs".
They also need to call out Corbyn's lunacy.
They need to present themselves as a coalition partner for either, but provide some stiff conditions, for example Minister of Brexit post in a Con/LD coalition, or Treasury and Defence in a Lab/LD coalition. Ie focus on where the larger parties look most "vulnerably extreme" to centrists like myself.
If centrists thought that a coalescing LD party could temper or even stymie the Cons, they might get some attention.
They don't have long to figure out their strategy. I maintain that an election in 2017 is more likely than not.
I expect the Witney result tomorrow will poor enough for the Conservatives that it will end talk of a 2017 GE
May and Tory high command might disagree with me, but however well the LDs perform tomorrow (and they won't win), it should have no bearing on GE support.
If the LDs do perform well, it's evidence merely of a very good ground game and Labour collapse amid low turnout.
The amount of resources that the LDs have poured into this by election is, to put it mildly, rather difficult to replicate in a general election.
Depending to some extent on how many seats they decide to go for. The targeting decision next time is going to be critical, and very difficult, for the LibDems. They desperately need to make the most of what opportunities there are, to get back to a parliamentary party that can at least get noticed now and again, but cannot risk aiming too high and ending up with just a handful.
Places to target will be the places lost to Cameron in '10, Bath, Cheltenham, Lewes, Twickenham etc. I'd focus on about 15-20 seats and hit them hard.
15 to 20 seats would each get maybe a quarter of the effort that the LDs are throwing at Witney.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
All developed markets represent an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world. Globalisation is not an argument to abandon the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity in our immediate neighbourhood. This line of thinking displays an absurd complacency about our situation.
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future. .
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
I spent a week out in Singapore interviewing some of its leading businesspeople (men) about its success, way back in the 90s for my MBA. I don't see any of the factors behind their success (as was) in Brexit.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office. FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
The suspect was wearing a Democratic pin and had a handwritten note from Hillary asking him to "fuck up the office and steal all the data". It later turned out that the suspect was Chelsea Clinton's ex-boyfriend and long-term family friend.
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
Bah, this is handwaving, from that article
Later, a spokesperson for the San Antonio Police Department said it did not appear the attempted break-in was politically motivated. Officers said the suspect has a history of breaking into buildings and there was no evidence he knew the office he was targeting was being used by the Trump campaign.
Interesting, over 400 EVCs would be huge and would probably have to include Texas, or at least would be easiest to achieve with Texas. It would probably mean Hillary eating up several of the Southern states.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
Singapore is like London (zones 1-4 of the tube only). I hope these comparisons are being made to troll people (in which case, jolly well done).
The alternative is that they are being made genuinely, with genuine belief that they are right, and the UK can be just like that. No, I refuse to believe anyone could think that and be able to breath and write a comment at the same time.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Germany isn't the EU, in spite of sometimes appearing that it is.
The EU is a big cumbersome, inflexible beast. How does anyone ever get them to agree about anything? Who in their right mind would invent their executive structure?
The UK will do better over time (in comparison to being stuck within) because our freedom will enable agility and swifter reactions.
The world is changing.
The EU is a typical mid 20th century invention, riddled with dogma and religious fervour, that won't.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
"And Norway and Canada are very rich countries" with a low population density and colossal natural resources.
Or doesn't that matter?
They are ways Remainers try and excuse their independence as special cases.
Switzerland has low natural resources and certainly not a low population density.
What's the excuse there? Cuckoo Clocks?
And Iceland? Fish?
There isn't one. We joined the EU for political reasons, and we are leaving the EU for political reasons.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
Last time I was in Singapore the old taxi driver said everything was better under the British. Such is the fate of Remoaners, perhaps...
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
All developed markets represent an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world. Globalisation is not an argument to abandon the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity in our immediate neighbourhood. This line of thinking displays an absurd complacency about our situation.
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
There is no upside and no economic case for Brexit. That's why Leave majored on immigration.
All things being equal, Brexit makes us poorer. And I think most of the Brexiters on here accept that.
The idea of a free trading, buccaneering Singapore of the North Atlantic doesn't hold. Nor does a deregulated, libertarian paradise.
And as you say, these models don't attract political support here anyway.
The best we can hope is that Brexit creates a shock to the system such that we revisit growth-harming shibboleths (infrastructure, education, regional disparities). No evidence of that yet. Indeed, with Heathrow, grammar schools, and lukewarm noises about the Northern Powerhouse, quite the reverse.
"Lukewarm about the Northern Powerhouse" ? Evidence please. Did you watch/hear Philip Hammond before the Select Committee today?
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
Very true. Great reasoning to why London should secede from the UK. Excellently put Paul.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
"And Norway and Canada are very rich countries" with a low population density and colossal natural resources.
Or doesn't that matter?
They are ways Remainers try and excuse their independence as special cases.
Switzerland has low natural resources and certainly not a low population density.
What's the excuse there? Cuckoo Clocks?
And Iceland? Fish?
There isn't one. We joined the EU for political reasons, and we are leaving the EU for political reasons.
You'll put your back out if you don't put those goalposts down.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
There is no upside and no economic case for Brexit. That's why Leave majored on immigration.
All things being equal, Brexit makes us poorer. And I think most of the Brexiters on here accept that.
The idea of a free trading, buccaneering Singapore of the North Atlantic doesn't hold. Nor does a deregulated, libertarian paradise.
And as you say, these models don't attract political support here anyway.
The best we can hope is that Brexit creates a shock to the system such that we revisit growth-harming shibboleths (infrastructure, education, regional disparities). No evidence of that yet. Indeed, with Heathrow, grammar schools, and lukewarm noises about the Northern Powerhouse, quite the reverse.
"Lukewarm about the Northern Powerhouse" ? Evidence please. Did you watch/hear Philip Hammond before the Select Committee today?
Nope. What did he say?
I was referring to the very early noises (I think from T May's Chief of Staff) and the lamentable loss of Jim O'Neill.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Why would Catalans boo the EU anthem?? Surely they are pro-European as the Eu offers their best route out of Spain? I think you mishear, or misconstrue
UEFA have also upset Barcelona with fines over Catalonia
Meaningless approval figures.. it depended on where one was in the electoral cycle. Labour had spent more money on Pledge that anyone ever and the shine of the polished turd worked for a while until everyone realised what a ghastly(and incompetent) man Brown was.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
There is no upside and no economic case for Brexit. That's why Leave majored on immigration.
All things being equal, Brexit makes us poorer. And I think most of the Brexiters on here accept that.
The idea of a free trading, buccaneering Singapore of the North Atlantic doesn't hold. Nor does a deregulated, libertarian paradise.
And as you say, these models don't attract political support here anyway.
The best we can hope is that Brexit creates a shock to the system such that we revisit growth-harming shibboleths (infrastructure, education, regional disparities). No evidence of that yet. Indeed, with Heathrow, grammar schools, and lukewarm noises about the Northern Powerhouse, quite the reverse.
It would indeed seem that we have forced ourselves to ask ourselves a series of tricky questions, then tabled exactly the wrong answers.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
All developed markets represent an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world. Globalisation is not an argument to abandon the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity in our immediate neighbourhood. This line of thinking displays an absurd complacency about our situation.
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
The European Central Bank is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form, the founding architect of the monetary union has warned.
"One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB's first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
The UK will do better over time (in comparison to being stuck within) because our freedom will enable agility and swifter reactions.
That is contingent on our decisions being correct! There is a difference between being agile and being a drunk lurching about the place!
Business likes stability, and hard currency. There is a cold wind coming, and Brexiteers should worry that it is cold enough and strong enough to blow the whole ship off course.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
My original point about Canada and Norway was not about what they had - but that they follow someone else's product regulations pretty religiously, JUST AS WE WILL. This may not be a hindrance but cannot by definition deliver any upside compared to now. We follow the same regulations already.
I don't see any significant way in which the EU regulates our labour market that we would wish to change? We already have a swathe of opt outs, such as from the working time regulations.
I agree the Uk is a great place. But once again this is emotion not argument.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
No more so than you have. I laid out my arguments perfectly clearly in my blog before the referendum, and I stand by them.
Undoubtedly, quitting the customs union and single market of the EU increases the trade barriers to trading within the EU as it is currently constituted. Whether that affects us in the long-term, or not, depends on what extent the EU has diverted our global trade patterns in its favour, to what extent it continues to form a major part of our trade in future, and what trade deals and deregulation we create in the UK in its lieu.
I do not believe that is any serious barrier to our long-term prosperity as a nation, and the models that show there might be work off base assumptions of the status-quo as it is now.
If we had joined the euro, and then wanted to leave, you could have created an even stronger argument to trade disruption to leaving due to reimposed currency barriers, disruption to supply chains, transaction charges and exchange rate risk. But the political freedom of having our own currency over the last 8 years has undoubtedly been of economic benefit.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to drown out dissenting voices.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to droan out dissenting voices.
Perhaps you can explain, then, how we would best model ourselves on Singapore? I'm all ears.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Why would Catalans boo the EU anthem?? Surely they are pro-European as the Eu offers their best route out of Spain? I think you mishear, or misconstrue
UEFA have also upset Barcelona with fines over Catalonia
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
No more so than you have. I laid out my arguments perfectly clearly in my blog before the referendum, and I stand by them.
Undoubtedly, quitting the customs union and single market of the EU increases the trade barriers to trading within the EU as it is currently constituted. Whether that affects us in the long-term, or not, depends on what extent the EU has diverted our global trade patterns in its favour, to what extent it continues to form a major part of our trade in future, and what trade deals and deregulation we create in the UK in its lieu.
I do not believe that is any serious barrier to our long-term prosperity as a nation, and the models that show there might be work off base assumptions of the status-quo as it is now.
If we had joined the euro, and then wanted to leave, you could have created an even stronger argument to trade disruption to leaving due to reimposed currency barriers, disruption to supply chains, transaction charges and exchange rate risk. But the political freedom of having our own currency over the last 8 years has undoubtedly been of economic benefit.
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Why would Catalans boo the EU anthem?? Surely they are pro-European as the Eu offers their best route out of Spain? I think you mishear, or misconstrue
UEFA have also upset Barcelona with fines over Catalonia
Last night Copenhagen fans lit a dozen or so red flares for there pre match Tifo, yet it seems Leicester City will be sanctioned for it. I can see some trouble if that goes ahead at the next CL home match.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to droan out dissenting voices.
Perhaps you can explain, then, how we would best model ourselves on Singapore? I'm all ears.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
My original point about Canada and Norway was not about what they had - but that they follow someone else's product regulations pretty religiously, JUST AS WE WILL. This may not be a hindrance but cannot by definition deliver any upside compared to now. We follow the same regulations already.
I don't see any significant way in which the EU regulates our labour market that we would wish to change? We already have a swathe of opt outs, such as from the working time regulations.
I agree the Uk is a great place. But once again this is emotion not argument.
I'm not willing to trade self-governance and democracy for a fraction of a say on product regulations in a supernational body. I'd prefer to comply with those regulations if we have to sell into it, but otherwise decide for ourselves what is best for our own domestic standards. Which may be the same, or not.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to droan out dissenting voices.
Perhaps you can explain, then, how we would best model ourselves on Singapore? I'm all ears.
Replace the local population with merchants from the continent and start executing drug dealers?
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to drown out dissenting voices.
The early group stages of the CL are pointless - too many mismatches.
Indeed. Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
UK densely populated, lol.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre UK: 268 people per square kilometre
In the context of rebutting a comment that Britain could not succeed like Canada or Norway because it is small with a high population density it is an entirely reasonable comparison.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to drown out dissenting voices.
I never said we couldn't succeed like Canada or Norway.
My point was that escaping from EU product regulations cannot be the source of our future economic advantage - because we won't be escaping, just as Norway or Canada (from the US regs) has not and cannot.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
And then have a second vote (/joke)?
Looks like the best the headbangers can offer is Singapore (a semi-democratic city state) and NZ, which would require mass clearances of the population.
Pathetic.
Now, if you'd said Sth Korea it would have been harder to argue.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
The UK will do better over time (in comparison to being stuck within) because our freedom will enable agility and swifter reactions.
That is contingent on our decisions being correct! There is a difference between being agile and being a drunk lurching about the place!
Business likes stability, and hard currency. There is a cold wind coming, and Brexiteers should worry that it is cold enough and strong enough to blow the whole ship off course.
There is always a cold wind coming. There is always a cause of instability.
If you wish for neither, especially the latter - abolishing real elections is one of the first things that should happen. The EU almost achieves it.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Why would Catalans boo the EU anthem?? Surely they are pro-European as the Eu offers their best route out of Spain? I think you mishear, or misconstrue
UEFA have also upset Barcelona with fines over Catalonia
Last night Copenhagen fans lit a dozen or so red flares for there pre match Tifo, yet it seems Leicester City will be sanctioned for it. I can see some trouble if that goes ahead at the next CL home match.
UEFA make the FA seem sound.
There was an article on a Man City fansite about UEFA fines to various clubs,
It was something like racist chanting got you a fine of 15,000 Euros, but 80k fine for Nicklas Bendtner for wearing boxer shorts that had Paddy Power name on it
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
No more so than you have. I laid out my arguments perfectly clearly in my blog before the referendum, and I stand by them.
Undoubtedly, quitting the customs union and single market of the EU increases the trade barriers to trading within the EU as it is currently constituted. Whether that affects us in the long-term, or not, depends on what extent the EU has diverted our global trade patterns in its favour, to what extent it continues to form a major part of our trade in future, and what trade deals and deregulation we create in the UK in its lieu.
I do not believe that is any serious barrier to our long-term prosperity as a nation, and the models that show there might be work off base assumptions of the status-quo as it is now.
If we had joined the euro, and then wanted to leave, you could have created an even stronger argument to trade disruption to leaving due to reimposed currency barriers, disruption to supply chains, transaction charges and exchange rate risk. But the political freedom of having our own currency over the last 8 years has undoubtedly been of economic benefit.
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is the one bit about the Brexit case I genuinely don't understand. I can understand all the political and emotional arguments for Brexit, the bit I don't see is why or how we will ever be "streets ahead" (as someone else claimed last week) in economic performance?
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
And then have a second vote (/joke)?
There will be no room for democracy after Brexit Year Zero. All voting will be considered counter-revolutionary and punished accordingly.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doesn't do that well. It's GDP per capita is much lower than Oz (and slightly lower than the UK). The isolation is too much.
There is no guarantee Britain will do better economically outside the EU. But it will surely be a happier and nobler place, in time, as we can end this ceaseless, enervating bickering about Europe, and we will be forced to fix our own mistakes. We will have no one to blame but us. Democratic blood will course through the body politic, once more. Salutary.
I also suspect we WILL be richer, long term, because that is the natural destiny of free trading, liberal, capitalist, English speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
And then have a second vote (/joke)?
Looks like the best the headbangers can offer is Singapore (a semi-democratic city state) and NZ, which would require mass clearances of the population.
Pathetic.
Now, if you'd said Sth Korea it would have been harder to argue.
Headbanger = someone who disagrees with you
Not-a-headbanger = New Zealand is a stunning success story because it's got semi-skimmed.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doesn't do that well. It's GDP per capita is much lower than Oz (and slightly lower than the UK). The isolation is too much.
There is no guarantee Britain will do better economically outside the EU. But it will surely be a happier and nobler place, in time, as we can end this ceaseless, enervating bickering about Europe, and we will be forced to fix our own mistakes. We will have no one to blame but us. Democratic blood will course through the body politic, once more. Salutary.
I also suspect we WILL be richer, long term, because that is the natural destiny of free trading, liberal, capitalist, English speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
My original point about Canada and Norway was not about what they had - but that they follow someone else's product regulations pretty religiously, JUST AS WE WILL. This may not be a hindrance but cannot by definition deliver any upside compared to now. We follow the same regulations already.
I don't see any significant way in which the EU regulates our labour market that we would wish to change? We already have a swathe of opt outs, such as from the working time regulations.
I agree the Uk is a great place. But once again this is emotion not argument.
I'm not willing to trade self-governance and democracy for a fraction of a say on product regulations in a supernational body. I'd prefer to comply with those regulations if we have to sell into it, but otherwise decide for ourselves what is best for our own domestic standards. Which may be the same, or not.
I appreciate others might disagree.
I respect your views to which you are of course entitled. And they are widely shared. My point is simply that, even if you are right that we will be politically and emotionally more satisfied with our lot, there is nothing in them that offers, let alone guarantees, the prospect of improved economic performance.
And as an aside, the words "flexibility" and "trade deals" barely belong in the same sentence, anyway, given how cumbersome and time-consuming the whole process appears to be.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ .
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
Um, no. There is an economic case for Brexit, in the medium-long term. It's just you don't agree with it.
Open Europe, the IEA and Capital Economics have all made it.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
NZ has dairy of course, so has done very well out of the commodities super cycle. It also runs a mahoosive current account deficit, which will have to unwind one day unless it wants to be a fully owned subsidiary of China Inc.
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
And then have a second vote (/joke)?
Looks like the best the headbangers can offer is Singapore (a semi-democratic city state) and NZ, which would require mass clearances of the population.
Pathetic.
Now, if you'd said Sth Korea it would have been harder to argue.
Headbanger = someone who disagrees with you
Not-a-headbanger = New Zealand is a stunning success story because it's got semi-skimmed.
Headbanger = someone who asserts an economic case for Brexit but is unable to provide a solitary supporting argument.
The argument about the future seems to largely ignore the past.
*How well is the UK doing as a member of the EU? *How well is manufacturing doing? *How about our trade position? *How are our trade deals with China, USA, Canada, India etc progressing following outsourcing negotiations? *How is our social policy working since we agreed to outsource the function to the EU?
We've employed consultants, advisors, negotiators, managers? How are they doing? How well are they protecting the EU's global trade share? How well are they protecting our interests?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
No
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
My .
I'm not willing to trade self-governance and democracy for a fraction of a say on product regulations in a supernational body. I'd prefer to comply with those regulations if we have to sell into it, but otherwise decide for ourselves what is best for our own domestic standards. Which may be the same, or not.
I appreciate others might disagree.
I respect your views to which you are of course entitled. And they are widely shared. My point is simply that, even if you are right that we will be politically and emotionally more satisfied with our lot, there is nothing in them that offers, let alone guarantees, the prospect of improved economic performance.
And as an aside, the words "flexibility" and "trade deals" barely belong in the same sentence, anyway, given how cumbersome and time-consuming the whole process appears to be.
Well, that's a more nuanced post that I can agree with.
There are, of course, no guarantees. My primary reason for voting Brexit is that living in a world of self-governing liberal democracies that respond to their citizens directly through the ballot box is more important to me than, even risk-assessing the worst case, 29% growth by 2030 versus a potential 37% growth, with economic models chock full of assumptions and whopping margins of error.
Ultimately, economics cannot exist in isolation of politics. You don't sustain the political support, you lose the economics.
Our situation is more analogous to Singapore when it seceded from Malaysia.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
Anyone can run an entrepôt state. Staying in Malaysia would have been a disaster for Lee Kuan Yew, who would have found it much harder to set up his hang-em and flog-em Chinese-supremacist but world-facing dictatorship in Singapore had it been a mere province.
Comments
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/trump-san-antonio-campaign-office-burglarized-suspect-captured/
"On Wednesday a burglar was arrested trying to break into the Trump San Antonio campaign office.
FOX San Antonio reported:
Police confirmed they were investigating a burglary at local offices used by the Donald Trump campaign.
According to the San Antonio Police Department, an off-duty officer working security at the building located near Loop 410 and Harry Wurzbach Road found someone trying to break into an office.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/Speedy
Our opt outs and non-membership of the Euro insulate us from those aspects of the EU that could potentially hinder our economic performance. The £ floats.
Our trading position outside the EU is going to be very exposed for many years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
Our recent growth depends on immigration, as Boris well knows, and it will be a struggle to find an immigration solution that doesn't hinder our economy. Very best case is break even.
Outside the EU we will still have to comply with EU trading standards - just as Norway does and just as Canada follows all the US standards
I don't buy the Farage-type neo-liberal/de-regulation agenda, but even if you do, it would be remarkable if Brexit led to such politics in the UK - all the signs are that it is fuelling (or reflects) a desire for more statism and intervention.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
I do my handwaving in a "jazz hands" manner to avoid any triggering.
Yo soy un hombre sincero
De donde crece le palma.
Y antes de morirme quiero
Echar mis versos del alma.
Later, a spokesperson for the San Antonio Police Department said it did not appear the attempted break-in was politically motivated. Officers said the suspect has a history of breaking into buildings and there was no evidence he knew the office he was targeting was being used by the Trump campaign.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301746-republican-strategist-clinton-could-top-400-electoral
Or doesn't that matter?
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
Carney is right at seeing a cold wind coming, though I am not convinced that further debasing the currency is wise*.
*for how that feels, click on my avatar. That note was swapped for a beer when I was in africa last.
All things being equal, Brexit makes us poorer. And I think most of the Brexiters on here accept that.
The idea of a free trading, buccaneering Singapore of the North Atlantic doesn't hold.
Nor does a deregulated, libertarian paradise.
And as you say, these models don't attract political support here anyway.
The best we can hope is that Brexit creates a shock to the system such that we revisit growth-harming shibboleths (infrastructure, education, regional disparities). No evidence of that yet. Indeed, with Heathrow, grammar schools, and lukewarm noises about the Northern Powerhouse, quite the reverse.
Just like every other night.
Small and incredibly densely populated, it was sadly a total disaster for Singapore.....oh hang on....Singapore GNP now twice as much per head as Malaysia who have six times the population.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
It's rubbish.
Flexibility to respond means we can regulate our products, services and labour market as we wish to, in response to the global environment.
In some areas, we will wish to tighten regulation. In others, to loosen it.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
Singapore: 7987 people per square kilometre
UK: 268 people per square kilometre
The alternative is that they are being made genuinely, with genuine belief that they are right, and the UK can be just like that. No, I refuse to believe anyone could think that and be able to breath and write a comment at the same time.
The EU is a big cumbersome, inflexible beast. How does anyone ever get them to agree about anything? Who in their right mind would invent their executive structure?
The UK will do better over time (in comparison to being stuck within) because our freedom will enable agility and swifter reactions.
The world is changing.
The EU is a typical mid 20th century invention, riddled with dogma and religious fervour, that won't.
Switzerland has low natural resources and certainly not a low population density.
What's the excuse there? Cuckoo Clocks?
And Iceland? Fish?
There isn't one. We joined the EU for political reasons, and we are leaving the EU for political reasons.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
https://twitter.com/katiezez/status/788789705449930752
I was referring to the very early noises (I think from T May's Chief of Staff) and the lamentable loss of Jim O'Neill.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/19/barcelona-fight-second-uefa-catalonia-fine
"One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB's first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/16/euro-house-of-cards-to-collapse-warns-ecb-prophet/
Business likes stability, and hard currency. There is a cold wind coming, and Brexiteers should worry that it is cold enough and strong enough to blow the whole ship off course.
I don't see any significant way in which the EU regulates our labour market that we would wish to change? We already have a swathe of opt outs, such as from the working time regulations.
I agree the Uk is a great place. But once again this is emotion not argument.
Undoubtedly, quitting the customs union and single market of the EU increases the trade barriers to trading within the EU as it is currently constituted. Whether that affects us in the long-term, or not, depends on what extent the EU has diverted our global trade patterns in its favour, to what extent it continues to form a major part of our trade in future, and what trade deals and deregulation we create in the UK in its lieu.
I do not believe that is any serious barrier to our long-term prosperity as a nation, and the models that show there might be work off base assumptions of the status-quo as it is now.
If we had joined the euro, and then wanted to leave, you could have created an even stronger argument to trade disruption to leaving due to reimposed currency barriers, disruption to supply chains, transaction charges and exchange rate risk. But the political freedom of having our own currency over the last 8 years has undoubtedly been of economic benefit.
I don't mind debating but remoaners just want to drown out dissenting voices.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
Last night Copenhagen fans lit a dozen or so red flares for there pre match Tifo, yet it seems Leicester City will be sanctioned for it. I can see some trouble if that goes ahead at the next CL home match.
UEFA make the FA seem sound.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/788813740821123076
I appreciate others might disagree.
My point was that escaping from EU product regulations cannot be the source of our future economic advantage - because we won't be escaping, just as Norway or Canada (from the US regs) has not and cannot.
Pathetic.
Now, if you'd said Sth Korea it would have been harder to argue.
If you wish for neither, especially the latter - abolishing real elections is one of the first things that should happen. The EU almost achieves it.
It was something like racist chanting got you a fine of 15,000 Euros, but 80k fine for Nicklas Bendtner for wearing boxer shorts that had Paddy Power name on it
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
It's made in Otago though which is bloody cold in winter.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
Not-a-headbanger = New Zealand is a stunning success story because it's got semi-skimmed.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
And as an aside, the words "flexibility" and "trade deals" barely belong in the same sentence, anyway, given how cumbersome and time-consuming the whole process appears to be.
Seems in political cartooning there is Matt in the Premier League and everyone else in the fourth division....
Open Europe, the IEA and Capital Economics have all made it.
*How well is the UK doing as a member of the EU?
*How well is manufacturing doing?
*How about our trade position?
*How are our trade deals with China, USA, Canada, India etc progressing following outsourcing negotiations?
*How is our social policy working since we agreed to outsource the function to the EU?
We've employed consultants, advisors, negotiators, managers? How are they doing? How well are they protecting the EU's global trade share? How well are they protecting our interests?
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
There are, of course, no guarantees. My primary reason for voting Brexit is that living in a world of self-governing liberal democracies that respond to their citizens directly through the ballot box is more important to me than, even risk-assessing the worst case, 29% growth by 2030 versus a potential 37% growth, with economic models chock full of assumptions and whopping margins of error.
Ultimately, economics cannot exist in isolation of politics. You don't sustain the political support, you lose the economics.
Human history is littered with it.