On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free tradehave with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single marngle market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
The Canadians have their EU deal now, so there are no more problems with competing agendas. They'll do one with us too, but only if it does not jeapordise the agreement they have with the much bigger market next door.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
You are a real dreamer Max. The UK will be at the tail , no-one will want to use any crap deals they negotiate. UK will be forced to take what is on offer, it will not be generous and if teh choice is EU or UK then EU will take the biscuit every time.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
I would rather have the Commission answerable to elected MEPs, than Mrs May`s government, elected by only 24% of the registered electors.
And what % of the registered electors voted for the LibDems in the Coalition of 2010-2015?
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
The claim by Europhiles that Junker is elected is based on the myth that that the votes were cast for the EPP which won the election though.
On topic, I think anti-Brexit has far more resonance in Richmond Park than anti-Heathrow expansion.
72% oppose Brexit against 52% who oppose Heathrow expansion.
On the doorstep I'm finding Brexit is a far more emotional issue than Heathrow expansion.
Furthermore, people are far more motivated to come out and vote against something than vote for the status quo (as we saw in the EU referendum itself).
So expect a campaign focused on Brexit and expect a differential turnout in favour of Sarah Olney and against the Tory Kipper.
Incidentally, Sarah Olney is going to be a star MP.
Here she is again up against Andrew Neil at 12:05:
That latest projection is interesting, because it's partly based on early voting and partly on polling evidence. The projected lead has increased by about half a point, to 6.4%, during the course of early voting so far. If I understand correctly, this is still using polling data from about a week ago, so that change is entirely due to the early voting numbers.
Also, on Cohn's figures, more than a third have already voted in North Carolina, and the Clinton lead among early voters is 14%. To wipe that out, Trump would need a lead of 7% for the other two thirds. But Cohn's estimate for those yet to vote is a 2% Clinton lead. That would require a very large shift, or a very large methodological error.
I though we all agreed. Nissan staying is great, Q3 figures were reassuring.
But there's no decent trade case to be made for leaving the EU. And the idea that the Canadians would find the UK market more attractive than the EU market relies on a contortion of logic that amounts to self-deceit.
Next.
Nothing great about it if it is a sell out and first of many sellouts. It also gives EU team a geat big stick to beat teh Three Amigos with into the bargain. It will end in tears for sure.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
Not true. The EPP stood in London and got several hundred votes.
Something for Juncker's CV, got the votes of a few hundred Londoners, less than Winston McKenzie.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
The claim by Europhiles that Junker is elected is based on the myth that that the votes were cast for the EPP which won the election though.
Juncker was the choice of 26 out of 28 democratically elected European leaders.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
New York City US 18 Code 2071 Any person attempting to erase or destroy information being investigated shall forfeit his/her office & never hold office. https://t.co/AfGjYxr1Hz
On topic, I think anti-Brexit has far more resonance in Richmond Park than anti-Heathrow expansion.
72% oppose Brexit against 52% who oppose Heathrow expansion.
On the doorstep I'm finding Brexit is a far more emotional issue than Heathrow expansion.
Furthermore, people are far more motivated to come out and vote against something than vote for the status quo (as we saw in the EU referendum itself).
So expect a campaign focused on Brexit and expect a differential turnout in favour of Sarah Olney and against the Tory Kipper.
Incidentally, Sarah Olney is going to be a star MP.
Here she is again up against Andrew Neil at 12:05:
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's great news.
We are however interested to know whether the deal done with them has set a precedent and determined the priorities for our entire EU exit negotiations.
of course it hasnt6 set a precendent. The precedent was set in 1984 when we bribed the japanese car makers to come here. Weve been bribing multinats to do up business in the UK for most of my working life.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
I would rather have the Commission answerable to elected MEPs, than Mrs May`s government, elected by only 24% of the registered electors.
24% of registered electors is a lot. The EPP "won" the European elections and they got 10% of registered electors across Europe.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
When will Kaine take over from Clinton? The allegations re emails might have something which could finish her off as President, but perhaps another bout of pneumonia will force her to step down within weeks of her inauguration.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
The claim by Europhiles that Junker is elected is based on the myth that that the votes were cast for the EPP which won the election though.
Juncker was the choice of 26 out of 28 democratically elected European leaders.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
When you have to misrepresent your opponents' arguments you've lost your own. Can you point out anyone on here who has said it's bad news Nissan are staying?
They can't.
I think they are upset because the inference from the Nissan deal is that we're remaining in the single market and customs union.
Why would people be upset ? Some will be most PB leavers think we'll end up with a compromise deal but then that would stop you wittering endlessly about hard brexit
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
No-one voted for the EPP anywhere. It is a grouping of different national parties in the European Parliament which none of the British parties chose to join (the Tories having decided a few years ago to leave during one of Dave's Euro-grandstanding periods).
The EPP is avowedly federalist, with some of its continental members quite explicit in their advocacy for turning the EU into a United States of Europe. The Tory party, even when in a pro-European mood, has never been in a pro-USE mood. It may have been grandstanding to pull the Conservatives out of the EPP, but it was also an acknowledgement of a simple truth: the party simply did not, could not, agree with the agenda of the EPP, and moreover nor would the overwhelming bulk of its voters.
Had the Tories remained part of the EPP, and Tory votes at the Euro elections been tallied towards an EPP Commission President as if they constituted a personal endorsement, then given what the majority of Conservative voters feel about the objectives of the EPP that would have been a quite egregious contortion of democracy.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
60% with 27 nations or 40% with one?
The one will have no issue getting a deal.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
I was merely observing most people did not vote for this government. The Commission has nothing to do with it (though Commissioners are nominated by national governments and approved by MEPs).
You can be as obtuse as you want, but there's no getting around the fact that people voted for this government when no one has voted for the Commission which is made up of political appointments.
I would rather have the Commission answerable to elected MEPs, than Mrs May`s government, elected by only 24% of the registered electors.
Juncker was elected by 13% of the EU electorate. The left grouping got more votes.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Politics can be a dirty business. No doubt Hillary's mob had the Trump allegations and sexist recordings in their back pockets for ages but elected to release them 3 weeks before the GE. Now Trump's mob seem to have decided that 11 days out is the optimum moment to let rip on crooked Hillary and go for an impeachment. Whoever wins we're going to see the USA led by a deeply, deeply compromised a'hole. Oh dear.
Dr. Spyn, on the other hand, that may well be good for UKIP. Either Evans or Nuttall could do well.
Mr. Matt, I don't have a link. It was something I heard about years ago at university [did psychology but briefly touched on things like PACE and forensics, eyewitness testimony etc] that a majority of those in the legal profession didn't actually have any legal qualifications.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
It's fair enough for you to say you're happy to pay the price, but you should know that polling evidence shows that only (from memory) 7% of Leave supporters thought that Leaving would make the country worse off.
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
Correct and ultimately this will be the Achille's heal of Brexit. Yes people voted to Leave for a number of reasons - to "take back control", stop immigration, "regain sovereignty" etc etc.
But beneath all that they think it will be done at no economic cost to themselves - 7% think it would make them worse off and 58% better off from memory. Now if those expectations are fulfilled then no problem, if not (as I suspect will be the case of the next 5 years at least) then we'll see how robust the Brexit vote is.
In all my years of canvassing I have rarely come across voters who are "happy to pay the price" of anything! It's one of the comfortable delusions of some Leavers .
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Isn't a large part of our imports from Canada oil from the Hibernia and White Rose fields, and therefore not subject to tariffs anyway?
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Temporary until the Euro drops again.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Isn't a large part of our imports from Canada oil from the Hibernia and White Rose fields, and therefore not subject to tariffs anyway?
in all likelihood Robert, I'm just going off the raw figures and for clarity the 40% refers to Canada's exports to EU countries. But a sale is a sale, tariff or no and if we're taking 40% of their exports I still doubt they' ll want to cut the links. It make it harder to pay all those Mercedes they import.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving t
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we e important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Temporary until the Euro drops again.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
I'd have thought questions on it's inherent stability may have an influence.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
It's fair enough for you to say you're happy to pay the price, but you should know that polling evidence shows that only (from memory) 7% of Leave supporters thought that Leaving would make the country worse off.
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
Correct and ultimately this will be the Achille's heal of Brexit. Yes people voted to Leave for a number of reasons - to "take back control", stop immigration, "regain sovereignty" etc etc.
But beneath all that they think it will be done at no economic cost to themselves - 7% think it would make them worse off and 58% better off from memory. Now if those expectations are fulfilled then no problem, if not (as I suspect will be the case of the next 5 years at least) then we'll see how robust the Brexit vote is.
In all my years of canvassing I have rarely come across voters who are "happy to pay the price" of anything! It's one of the comfortable delusions of some Leavers .
Suspect it is worth drawing the distinction between accepting a real-terms decrease in one's personal financial situation, versus a real-terms increase which is less than the counterfactual - "we'd have been richer if we'd stayed" is a claim that, even if true, is very hard to verify, but moreover doesn't have quite the same teeth as "you're poorer now than you used to be".
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Isn't a large part of our imports from Canada oil from the Hibernia and White Rose fields, and therefore not subject to tariffs anyway?
in all likelihood Robert, I'm just going off the raw figures and for clarity the 40% refers to Canada's exports to EU countries. But a sale is a sale, tariff or no and if we're taking 40% of their exports I still doubt they' ll want to cut the links. It make it harder to pay all those Mercedes they import.
It would be interesting to see the data for goods and services, stripping out commodities. If I didn't have work to do, I'd find it
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
Yes let's get our export deficits even higher than now , that will show them pesky Europeans we mean business.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving t
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we e important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP EU27, 27 agendas $14tn GDP
UK GDP is also growing much faster the EU GDP and with inflation set to rise nominal GDP should rise by between 8-12% over the next couple of years bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Temporary until the Euro drops again.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
I'd have thought questions on it's inherent stability may have an influence.
Bretton Woods lasted 30 years, The Latin Monetary Union 60, and the Gold Standard in the UK more than 200.
While the cost of abandonment is greater than the cost of muddling through, it will continue.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
Only if we stay in (or retain unfettered access to) the single market.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good newhe much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thine Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 Canadians. I reckon you do too.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
Yes let's get our export deficits even higher than now , that will show them pesky Europeans we mean business.
we've just voted to do that via the EU malc or have you missed it ? Wee Mrs Mcturnip was clapping her hands at the time.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
Installment #5432 of the unresolved Eurozone debt crisis knocking confidence?
Debt-to-GDP is falling everywhere in the EU (except Greece).
Greece is a very small part of the economic pie too, so whilst politically inconvenient for the Eurozone - economically it doesn't make much odds in the wider scheme
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
The ability to trade with a larger market. One that is four or five times larger? No question.
By your logic, no one would ever attempt to sign free trade deals with China or the EU.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Isn't a large part of our imports from Canada oil from the Hibernia and White Rose fields, and therefore not subject to tariffs anyway?
in all likelihood Robert, I'm just going off the raw figures and for clarity the 40% refers to Canada's exports to EU countries. But a sale is a sale, tariff or no and if we're taking 40% of their exports I still doubt they' ll want to cut the links. It make it harder to pay all those Mercedes they import.
It would be interesting to see the data for goods and services, stripping out commodities. If I didn't have work to do, I'd find it
you have strange interests !
we only got on to this line of thought becau8se SO started making trade threats.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
The ability to trade with a larger market. One that is four or five times larger? No question.
By your logic, no one would ever attempt to sign free trade deals with China or the EU.
Well in practice the latter statement is probably true.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a ghad to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving t
There's a similar deaBritain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we e important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
UK, one agenda $2.4tn GDP rs bringing our purchasing power back to where it was before.
Although it's just taken a 20% drop relative to the rest of the EU!
Temporary until the Euro drops again.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
I'd have thought questions on it's inherent stability may have an influence.
Bretton Woods lasted 30 years, The Latin Monetary Union 60, and the Gold Standard in the UK more than 200.
While the cost of abandonment is greater than the cost of muddling through, it will continue.
I dont doubt the tenacity of the politicians will to keep the Euro together but the cracks are showing in places.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
The much-touted (on here) "sticking plaster" approach mooted IIRC first at a pre-vote BBG Brexit seminar.
A two line "yes we agree to everything as is" and then roll back or amend as necessary.
Wouldn't that mean that we would continue to accept the jurisdiction of EU institutions? I suspect that enough of the Conservative party would not tolerate that- even for a short while- such that this might not be achievable...
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want
Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 economy.
EU - 400 million people. Three G8 economies.
I have a very good idea which market is more important to the Canadians. I reckon you do too.
40% of Canadian trade with the EU is with the UK. It;s also the longest most established trading partner for historical reasons and where there is an openish border for Canadian citizens
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
The ability to trade with a larger market. One that is four or five times larger? No question.
By your logic, no one would ever attempt to sign free trade deals with China or the EU.
They already are trading with the larger market, and the larger market is growing more slowly than us.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
The much-touted (on here) "sticking plaster" approach mooted IIRC first at a pre-vote BBG Brexit seminar.
A two line "yes we agree to everything as is" and then roll back or amend as necessary.
Wouldn't that mean that we would continue to accept the jurisdiction of EU institutions? I suspect that enough of the Conservative party would not tolerate that- even for a short while- such that this might not be achievable...
I agree but it steadies the boat. By every account, and look at Canada of course, these things take time. Agreeing such a way forward means more time can be spent working out exactly what we want.
Yes, the bastards may not stand for it (nor may the EU), but it has an appeal when we are facing so much uncertainty, and the potential, with careless or uninformed negotiation, for so much economic damage.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good newhe much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thine Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 Canadians. I reckon you do too.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
Yes let's get our export deficits even higher than now , that will show them pesky Europeans we mean business.
we've just voted to do that via the EU malc or have you missed it ? Wee Mrs Mcturnip was clapping her hands at the time.
Some voted for it Alan, for us we are being railroaded against our will as usual, with no "real" say in the matter.
Sure and tbh the UK Canada deal will just look like CETA with financial and a few other services added. I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue. The real issue is getting first movers advantage across Asia, Latin America and eventually Africa. The EU may try and bully some nations to not do any deals with the UK out of bitterness but it's very unlikely. If anything the EU may decide to use any future UK trade agreements as templates for their own with a few additional agricultural NTBs protections.
Won't we, in all likelihood, just remain signatories to CETA post-Brexit?
I'm honestly not sure how the existing EU trade deals will carry over, if at all. At least on the basis of leaving the customs union.
The Ben Clements piece that won the IEA Brexit prize suggested that, as we remain signatories of all the treaties, we could continue to be bound by them until such a time as we made new arrangements. Which would be by far the most logical thing to do in the near (5 years) term.
The much-touted (on here) "sticking plaster" approach mooted IIRC first at a pre-vote BBG Brexit seminar.
A two line "yes we agree to everything as is" and then roll back or amend as necessary.
Wouldn't that mean that we would continue to accept the jurisdiction of EU institutions? I suspect that enough of the Conservative party would not tolerate that- even for a short while- such that this might not be achievable...
I wish Brexiters would be clear that there ought to be a distinction between the ECJ in its role as an arbiter of the single market (which is perfectly natural and necessary) and the ECJ in its role as an enforcer of the less savoury aspects of the EU.
The best argument for Brexit is to return judicial supremacy to our own system and for policy making to be reserved again by our own executive supported by Whitehall, rather than by the Commission.
But any trade agreement needs a court and the single market's is the ECJ.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
I'm not disputing that I want to know exactly what was said to Nissan in order for them to stay. I'm guessing it was pretty substantial because Nissan knew that if they announced they were leaving at this point Brexit would have been hit below the water line.
If we have paid a high price because the political consequences are huge then I want to know what it is because every multinational with an ounce of common sense is going to try to exact something similar.
Perhaps we should just pay out the £350m a week to the corporate sector in order for them to do what they would have done for nothing if we'd stayed in the EU! Let's face it, it was never going to the NHS
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good newhe much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thine Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 Canadians. I reckon you do too.
Your own maths tell me that 60% of Canadian trade is with EU ex UK.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
Quite the reverse
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
Yes let's get our export deficits even higher than now , that will show them pesky Europeans we mean business.
we've just voted to do that via the EU malc or have you missed it ? Wee Mrs Mcturnip was clapping her hands at the time.
Some voted for it Alan, for us we are being railroaded against our will as usual, with no "real" say in the matter.
I though the settled will of the Scottish people was to stay in the UK ?
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
It's fair enough for you to say you're happy to pay the price, but you should know that polling evidence shows that only (from memory) 7% of Leave supporters thought that Leaving would make the country worse off.
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
Correct and ultimately this will be the Achille's heal of Brexit. Yes people voted to Leave for a number of reasons - to "take back control", stop immigration, "regain sovereignty" etc etc.
But beneath all that they think it will be done at no economic cost to themselves - 7% think it would make them worse off and 58% better off from memory. Now if those expectations are fulfilled then no problem, if not (as I suspect will be the case of the next 5 years at least) then we'll see how robust the Brexit vote is.
In all my years of canvassing I have rarely come across voters who are "happy to pay the price" of anything! It's one of the comfortable delusions of some Leavers .
Correct but it is also true that most voters think somebody else should pay higher taxes to fund welfare. Labour have never really 'got' this.
I dont doubt the tenacity of the politicians will to keep the Euro together but the cracks are showing in places.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
It is worth remembering that - outside Italy - the Southern Eurozone is recovering nicely. The number of employed people in Spain (for example) has moved from 14.1m when the Euro was created on 1/1/99 to 18.5m now, which must be by far the biggest growth of any country in the developed world.
Given the Eurozone runs a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world (bigger than China's surplus), why would the Euro drop in value?
Installment #5432 of the unresolved Eurozone debt crisis knocking confidence?
Debt-to-GDP is falling everywhere in the EU (except Greece).
So it should during growth times which we have been in for years. Doesn't mean that EU banks and debt-to-GDP ratios are all healthy and immunised from future shocks.
We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.
Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
It's fair enough for you to say you're happy to pay the price, but you should know that polling evidence shows that only (from memory) 7% of Leave supporters thought that Leaving would make the country worse off.
Far from being happy to pay the price, the great majority of Leave voters thought there would be no price to pay.
Correct and ultimately this will be the Achille's heal of Brexit. Yes people voted to Leave for a number of reasons - to "take back control", stop immigration, "regain sovereignty" etc etc.
But beneath all that they think it will be done at no economic cost to themselves - 7% think it would make them worse off and 58% better off from memory. Now if those expectations are fulfilled then no problem, if not (as I suspect will be the case of the next 5 years at least) then we'll see how robust the Brexit vote is.
In all my years of canvassing I have rarely come across voters who are "happy to pay the price" of anything! It's one of the comfortable delusions of some Leavers .
Correct but it is also true that most voters think somebody else should pay higher taxes to fund welfare. Labour have never really 'got' this.
Agreed, I was just attacking Alanbrooke's delusional notion that there are hordes of Brexiters out there happy to take a lowering of their living standards in order for the sake of "sovereignty".
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
I'm not disputing that I want to know exactly what was said to Nissan in order for them to stay. I'm guessing it was pretty substantial because Nissan knew that if they announced they were leaving at this point Brexit would have been hit below the water line.
If we have paid a high price because the political consequences are huge then I want to know what it is because every multinational with an ounce of common sense is going to try to exact something similar.
Perhaps we should just pay out the £350m a week to the corporate sector in order for them to do what they would have done for nothing if we'd stayed in the EU! Let's face it, it was never going to the NHS
Right so you think some bloke on a blog is going to get the details of a commerical discussion between HMG and a company ?
As for the high price you seem remarkably relaxed about the current price of subsidising low wage foreign workers to work in say Starbucks or Amazon
I dont doubt the tenacity of the politicians will to keep the Euro together but the cracks are showing in places.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
It is worth remembering that - outside Italy - the Southern Eurozone is recovering nicely. The number of employed people in Spain (for example) has moved from 14.1m when the Euro was created on 1/1/99 to 18.5m now, which must be by far the biggest growth of any country in the developed world.
Spain yes and Ireland if we're PIGS spotting. But Greece and Portugal ?
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
Ahem:
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles. - More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles 2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
Selling my covert coat, wisest sartorial decision I've ever made.
The coat is fine. It's the collar that Kippifies it.
Dang, as it happens it was a rather nice, vintage Thresher & Glenny sans velvet collar.
That's another thing you've ruined Nigel, goddamm you!
Nigel understands the power of personal branding. Essential if you're a third party leader.
Close your eyes, and you can still see the camel coat, velvet collar, raised pint, and grin.
Now close your eyes and think of Farron. Nothing.
Farron makes a blank canvas look like a Jackson Pollock.
On that note, if anyone is even vaguely interested in this sort of thing - the Abstract Expressionism exhibition at the Royal Academy is unmissable.
Truly a once-in-a-generation assembly of Pollocks, Rothkos, Gorkys and de Koonings.
I have been once and will likely go again.
Wow thanks for that - had completely missed it. I will try to go this week. Good shout.
Did you get the catalogue? If so who wrote it?
I have the book, edited by David Anfam with essays by Jeremy Lewison, Carter Ratcliff and Susan Davidson.
I can't figure out why the show is not getting more publicity. Perhaps we are all over Abstract Expressionism and we've all been to New York or whatever.
But the best pieces are from regional US galleries, or (one spectactular piece) Canberra which I'm unlikely to see in situ anytime soon. Plus, you never see so many in one place.
I dont doubt the tenacity of the politicians will to keep the Euro together but the cracks are showing in places.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
It is worth remembering that - outside Italy - the Southern Eurozone is recovering nicely. The number of employed people in Spain (for example) has moved from 14.1m when the Euro was created on 1/1/99 to 18.5m now, which must be by far the biggest growth of any country in the developed world.
Sadly I think the only thing that would change people's perceptions of the Euro would be a major Sterling crisis accompanied by interest rate rises.
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
Ahem:
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles. - More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles 2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
Mr. Glenn, what do you mean by rate rises? Back to 0.5% wouldn't fuss anyone. If they went to 3% (even though that's pretty normal historically) that might be a different story.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
Only if we stay in (or retain unfettered access to) the single market.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
The lesson from Wallonia was how unlikely future potential trade agreements like TTIP are. The notion that the USA can not be described as a great free trader is bizarre considering its considerably bigger than the entire rump EU put together.
If - as seems increasingly probable - an independent UK can sign a deal with the USA while the EU can not then by Brexiting we will have vastly more than doubled the size of our market. That's without considering other potential deals.
The EU Single Market represents 7% of the globe's population and that's including the UK in that figure.
On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
The really good newhe much more important agreement they have with the EU.
There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.
On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.
LOL now youre just making it up again.
Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.
No you're conjecturing youre wishful thine Canucks think
UK - 65 million people. One G8 Canadians. I reckon you do too.
Yes let's get our export deficits even higher than now , that will show them pesky Europeans we mean business.
we've just voted to do that via the EU malc or have you missed it ? Wee Mrs Mcturnip was clapping her hands at the time.
Some voted for it Alan, for us we are being railroaded against our will as usual, with no "real" say in the matter.
I though the settled will of the Scottish people was to stay in the UK ?
Only at a point in 2014 and based on being in the EU. Times change as do opinions, some of the 55% believe they were sold a pup.
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
Ahem:
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles. - More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles 2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
A car takes 3-4 years to get in to production once its designed. Arguably anything up to 2014 is the result of Labour's efforts and it pains me to say it.
George and Dave were simply turdspangling to make themselves look good.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
I disagree with much of what you post but the existence of regional development grants, launch investment and research grants is hardly a well kept secret. It more of a surprise seeing the free market right being in favour of these market distortions and the left condemning/quibbling over them.
I'd have thought that the left would be wholly in favour as it marks cross-political return of industry subsidies and, if they were so inclined, nationalisation with limited compensation.
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
Ahem:
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles. - More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles 2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
I dont doubt the tenacity of the politicians will to keep the Euro together but the cracks are showing in places.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
It is worth remembering that - outside Italy - the Southern Eurozone is recovering nicely. The number of employed people in Spain (for example) has moved from 14.1m when the Euro was created on 1/1/99 to 18.5m now, which must be by far the biggest growth of any country in the developed world.
Sadly I think the only thing that would change people's perceptions of the Euro would be a major Sterling crisis accompanied by interest rate rises.
This is Step 2 in George Osborne's secret master plan to lead Britain into the Euro.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
Only if we stay in (or retain unfettered access to) the single market.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
The lesson from Wallonia was how unlikely future potential trade agreements like TTIP are. The notion that the USA can not be described as a great free trader is bizarre considering its considerably bigger than the entire rump EU put together.
If - as seems increasingly probable - an independent UK can sign a deal with the USA while the EU can not then by Brexiting we will have vastly more than doubled the size of our market. That's without considering other potential deals.
The EU Single Market represents 7% of the globe's population and that's including the UK in that figure.
There is no question that the UK could sign a trade deal with the US. The question would be on what terms. Don't expect anything like equality in mutual recognition of standards, regulation or legal processes.
Mr. Glenn, what do you mean by rate rises? Back to 0.5% wouldn't fuss anyone. If they went to 3% (even though that's pretty normal historically) that might be a different story.
A level where people feel their own finances could be imperilled combined with a perception that the government is not in control. 3% would probably do it (which says something about how bad our debt situation is).
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
Ahem:
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles. - More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles 2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
A car takes 3-4 years to get in to production once its designed. Arguably anything up to 2014 is the result of Labour's efforts and it pains me to say it.
George and Dave were simply turdspangling to make themselves look good.
By your logic shouldn't it be too early to judge George and Dave's results? Though 2015 being a high should be to their credit I would have thought?
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Only on Planet Remain is Nissan's remaining here considered bad news.
It's excellent news but we do need to know what inducements, if any, were offered. That has knock on consequences for the economy and other industries
we subsidised Amazon to set up it's warehouses, gave grants to JLR for an engine plant, assistance to Hitachi for trains, dosh up Airbus regularly, banks, IT and big Pharma get big carrots dangled in front of them.
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
I disagree with much of what you post but the existence of regional development grants, launch investment and research grants is hardly a well kept secret. It more of a surprise seeing the free market right being in favour of these market distortions and the left condemning/quibbling over them.
I'd have thought that the left would be wholly in favour as it marks cross-political return of industry subsidies and, if they were so inclined, nationalisation with limited compensation.
The" free" market doesnt exist.
The whole of Europe offers bribes for investment in various forms. If you want a level playing field you either abolish all subsidies or play the game to current rules.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
Only if we stay in (or retain unfettered access to) the single market.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
The lesson from Wallonia was how unlikely future potential trade agreements like TTIP are. The notion that the USA can not be described as a great free trader is bizarre considering its considerably bigger than the entire rump EU put together.
If - as seems increasingly probable - an independent UK can sign a deal with the USA while the EU can not then by Brexiting we will have vastly more than doubled the size of our market. That's without considering other potential deals.
The EU Single Market represents 7% of the globe's population and that's including the UK in that figure.
Hidden in your post is the assumption that we can sign a deal with the US while retaining access to the EU single market.
That is yet to be seen.
By the way, the US is only 4.4% of the world's population. So on that metric, we ought to have preferred the EU.
Another week and I see PB is infested with bitter remoaners still furious that Nissan hasn't left Britain.
It is amusing though to see the leftist snobs and Continuity Osbornes in their bizarre alliance.
Yawn. You obviously missed where I've said below that I think the government's guarantees are irrelevant.
Stop whinging you bitter leavers . You won, and you're still behaving like spoilt brats. I honestly think people such as yourself are constantly negative because you don't have anything positive to contribute.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You're being a little harsh JJ
They are like the dog that caught the car and has no idea what to do next. But it's going to snarl and bark at anyone that might try and take its new toy away.
Well there's already a deal with the EU, so in actual fact - from here - it's more difficult to get a deal with us.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
So by your own admission we will either get a deal as good as CETA or an improvement (however marginal) on it. Explain how that's a bad thing precisely please?
Only if we stay in (or retain unfettered access to) the single market.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
The lesson from Wallonia was how unlikely future potential trade agreements like TTIP are. The notion that the USA can not be described as a great free trader is bizarre considering its considerably bigger than the entire rump EU put together.
If - as seems increasingly probable - an independent UK can sign a deal with the USA while the EU can not then by Brexiting we will have vastly more than doubled the size of our market. That's without considering other potential deals.
The EU Single Market represents 7% of the globe's population and that's including the UK in that figure.
Surely the lesson from Waloonia is that future trade deals will be less ambitious so that they can be agreed by QMV?
Comments
72% oppose Brexit against 52% who oppose Heathrow expansion.
On the doorstep I'm finding Brexit is a far more emotional issue than Heathrow expansion.
Furthermore, people are far more motivated to come out and vote against something than vote for the status quo (as we saw in the EU referendum itself).
So expect a campaign focused on Brexit and expect a differential turnout in favour of Sarah Olney and against the Tory Kipper.
Incidentally, Sarah Olney is going to be a star MP.
Here she is again up against Andrew Neil at 12:05:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b080xt7r/daily-politics-26102016
Who knew ?!? .....
The UK will trump the EU very time. We're easy to deal with.
US 18 Code 2071 Any person attempting to erase or destroy information being investigated shall forfeit his/her office & never hold office. https://t.co/AfGjYxr1Hz
And as we discussed last week, and OGH has been tweeting, the Evening Standard poll was utter bollocks.
All to play for.
So while historical sentiment and a common language undoubtedly help UK-Canadian deal making, the bigger prize is the EU.
The real Alanbrooke was not so soppy-headed.
As for me I think it's great news real jobs, by a company which employs lots of people and pays taxes. It's what Cameron and Osborne should have been doing years ago if they wanted to rebalance the economy. But they didnt.
The one will have no issue getting a deal.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/793026045364633602
Had the Tories remained part of the EPP, and Tory votes at the Euro elections been tallied towards an EPP Commission President as if they constituted a personal endorsement, then given what the majority of Conservative voters feel about the objectives of the EPP that would have been a quite egregious contortion of democracy.
But I tend to agree with @rcs1000 that we'll just inherit CETA. Any improvements we want to make on it will be by definition of marginal importance to both us and Canada.
Forty shades of Green, but Goldsmith one far away from the blue spectrum.
On the bad side, I presume this increases Aaron Bank's determination to split from UK and find demented right wing causes of all stripes.
Mr. Matt, I don't have a link. It was something I heard about years ago at university [did psychology but briefly touched on things like PACE and forensics, eyewitness testimony etc] that a majority of those in the legal profession didn't actually have any legal qualifications.
Canada runs a large trade deficit with the EU, and a surplus with the UK
which one would you value more ?
(See: http://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Clement BREXIT entry_for web_0.pdf)
But beneath all that they think it will be done at no economic cost to themselves - 7% think it would make them worse off and 58% better off from memory. Now if those expectations are fulfilled then no problem, if not (as I suspect will be the case of the next 5 years at least) then we'll see how robust the Brexit vote is.
In all my years of canvassing I have rarely come across voters who are "happy to pay the price" of anything! It's one of the comfortable delusions of some Leavers .
A two line "yes we agree to everything as is" and then roll back or amend as necessary.
That's another thing you've ruined Nigel, goddamm you!
And all of this happened pre the vote with EU agreement.
You could form the Scottish Kingdom Independence Party, and become the leader of the Skippers.
While the cost of abandonment is greater than the cost of muddling through, it will continue.
But I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. I'm arguing that to risk the certainty of our largest market for the uncertainties of a number of other markets (few of whom can be described as great free traders) is not a sound argument.
Brexiteers were rubbing their hands at the Wallonian gambit. Now that this has been resolved they are foolishly trying to maintain the argument that we remain a more attractive proposition to the Canadians.
We weren't and we aren't. And now that CETA looks set there's probably not much more in it now that's "easy" to negotiate for us and Canada anyway.
One that is four or five times larger? No question.
By your logic, no one would ever attempt to sign free trade deals with China or the EU.
we only got on to this line of thought becau8se SO started making trade threats.
another of the fearsome Remainer "coulds"
Gah! I had 20 quid on him!
Close your eyes, and you can still see the camel coat, velvet collar, raised pint, and grin.
Now close your eyes and think of Farron. Nothing.
As the Stranglers said something better change. That could be moves to strengthen the Euro's functioning or it could be patience snaps in S Europe. Either way I dont see it as a currency with issues and the costs of continuing differ for each nation.
I suspect that enough of the Conservative party would not tolerate that- even for a short while- such that this might not be achievable...
Truly a once-in-a-generation assembly of Pollocks, Rothkos, Gorkys and de Koonings.
I have been once and will likely go again.
Yes, the bastards may not stand for it (nor may the EU), but it has an appeal when we are facing so much uncertainty, and the potential, with careless or uninformed negotiation, for so much economic damage.
The best argument for Brexit is to return judicial supremacy to our own system and for policy making to be reserved again by our own executive supported by Whitehall, rather than by the Commission.
But any trade agreement needs a court and the single market's is the ECJ.
If we have paid a high price because the political consequences are huge then I want to know what it is because every multinational with an ounce of common sense is going to try to exact something similar.
Perhaps we should just pay out the £350m a week to the corporate sector in order for them to do what they would have done for nothing if we'd stayed in the EU! Let's face it, it was never going to the NHS
Did you get the catalogue? If so who wrote it?
SMMT News, 21/1/16:
- UK car manufacturing reaches 10-year high, growing 3.9% to 1,587,677 vehicles.
- More cars exported than ever before, up 2.7% on previous year at 1,227,881.
2009: 1m vehicles
2015: 1.6m vehicles
The makers were indeed marching. Let's hope it continues.
http://www.smmt.co.uk/2016/01/best-year-in-a-decade-for-british-car-manufacturing-as-exports-reach-record-high/
I can't figure out why the show is not getting more publicity. Perhaps we are all over Abstract Expressionism and we've all been to New York or whatever.
But the best pieces are from regional US galleries, or (one spectactular piece) Canberra which I'm unlikely to see in situ anytime soon. Plus, you never see so many in one place.
If - as seems increasingly probable - an independent UK can sign a deal with the USA while the EU can not then by Brexiting we will have vastly more than doubled the size of our market. That's without considering other potential deals.
The EU Single Market represents 7% of the globe's population and that's including the UK in that figure.
A car takes 3-4 years to get in to production once its designed. Arguably anything up to 2014 is the result of Labour's efforts and it pains me to say it.
George and Dave were simply turdspangling to make themselves look good.
I'd have thought that the left would be wholly in favour as it marks cross-political return of industry subsidies and, if they were so inclined, nationalisation with limited compensation.
The first half of 2016 was even better - the best in total production since 2000:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/uk-car-manufacturing-hits-high-industry-warns-brexit-effect
The Osborne years were definitely good for the UK car industry.
The whole of Europe offers bribes for investment in various forms. If you want a level playing field you either abolish all subsidies or play the game to current rules.
That is yet to be seen.
By the way, the US is only 4.4% of the world's population. So on that metric, we ought to have preferred the EU.
They are like the dog that caught the car and has no idea what to do next. But it's going to snarl and bark at anyone that might try and take its new toy away.