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.
It's not really clear that the US can do TTIP either. Hillary Clinton is pretending she's opposed to it, and Donald Trump is also not enthusiastic. It's just a really shitty time to be trying to do trade deals.
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?
Only in the car industry. The rest of industry ( bar aerospace ) work on shorter lead times and have been stagnating for the last 6 years. Construction is a bigger mess.
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.
Excellent thanks.
Just listened to Anfam talking about the movement - I must say he spends more time on what I call "the brushtrokes" type of art history, rather than the intellectual intent or social art history of abstract expressionism, which I find by far the more interesting aspect.
But I'm booked for tomorrow morning so thanks!
Edit: of course the mode of putting paint on the canvas was very important, but more critical is why they chose that mode. Anfam says precious little about it.
Mr. Charles, there was a story of a border collie (not mine) who got his by a car some years ago. It then became a mystery (until caught on CCTV) tyre slasher, biting car tyres whenever she saw one parked in revenge for getting hit.
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.
TTIP and TPP are both dead at the hands of the next US administration irrespective.
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.
I'm aware of that (and the US is, if anything, worse). The intellectual inconsistency of individual participants is illuminating though.
Both Sporting's and Spreadex's POTUS ECV markets remain closed yet again, which is disappointing. Even if they imposed limits, one would have expected them to enable clients to at least trade their open positions .... not 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.
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.
I'm aware of that (and the US is, if anything, worse). The intellectual inconsistency of individual participants is illuminating though.
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.
Do you think a vibrant, healthy and growing EU will be more disposed to offering the UK a better deal than a moribund, populist and shrinking EU, or vice-versa?
[and the same question to all PBers]
There are so many moving parts I have no idea. The intersection of politics and economics is a long way from rationality...
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.
Excellent thanks.
Just listened to Anfam talking about the movement - I must say he spends more time on what I call "the brushtrokes" type of art history, rather than the intellectual intent or social art history of abstract expressionism, which I find by far the more interesting aspect.
But I'm booked for tomorrow morning so thanks!
Edit: of course the mode of putting paint on the canvas was very important, but more critical is why they chose that mode. Anfam says precious little about it.
You get a bit of the social / historical stuff. Maybe not enough, but I imagine you're familiar with the basics anyway. Scary BTW how many suicided.
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
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.
Excellent thanks.
Just listened to Anfam talking about the movement - I must say he spends more time on what I call "the brushtrokes" type of art history, rather than the intellectual intent or social art history of abstract expressionism, which I find by far the more interesting aspect.
But I'm booked for tomorrow morning so thanks!
Edit: of course the mode of putting paint on the canvas was very important, but more critical is why they chose that mode. Anfam says precious little about it.
You get a bit of the social / historical stuff. Maybe not enough, but I imagine you're familiar with the basics anyway. Scary BTW how many suicided.
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
If you're spending millions on a house, the cost of triple glazing is in the rounding error....
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.
I'm aware of that (and the US is, if anything, worse). The intellectual inconsistency of individual participants is illuminating though.
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
If you're spending millions on a house, the cost of triple glazing is in the rounding error....
Triple-glazing doesn't help that much, because it is such a low vibration noise. And it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to have a conversation in your garden on a summer's evening.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
If you're spending millions on a house, the cost of triple glazing is in the rounding error....
Triple-glazing doesn't help that much, because it is such a low vibration noise. And it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to have a conversation in your garden on a summer's evening.
Still the buzz of a bumble-bee compared to Concorde flying directly over-head with engines on full throttle - as I used to get every day at 11.00 am. Ah, the perils of living in a hill-top water-tower....
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Still the buzz of a bumble-bee compared to Concorde flying directly over-head with engines on full throttle - as I used to get every day at 11.00 am. Ah, the perils of living in a hill-top water-tower....
Yes, but they come over every minute of the day from 6am until late at night (plus a few before 6am), albeit with some limited respite from swapping between the two runways.
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).
Is it not the case that in the real world economies are cyclical? You need to manage debt and deficits over that cycle. Most developed countries seem to forget this and go all spendy and jam tomorrowish when things look OK and then get shafted when the following recession comes. The absolute debt remains, the GDP doesn't and spending has to go up to cover things like increased unemployment benefits. Over the cycle they ratchet down and debt/GDP worsens until it kills them. I call this the Gordo Fallacy. Is the current mild recovery phase of e.g. Spain going to be enough to meet the next recession? Or put it this way - if they weren't improving strongly 8 years in then they never will.
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.
TTIP and TPP are both dead at the hands of the next US administration irrespective.
I doubt it. It was Bill Clinton who promoted NAFTA afterall. Hillary in office is likely to accept TPP.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Posted about this up-thread but aside from the problem of persuading British voters, who mistakenly believe that this kind of thing can be policed at the border, I doubt the EU side would accept the fudge.
This may even be worse from the point of view of migrant-representing countries than simple national restrictions, because it's actually plausible that other countries in the EU might try to copy it, whereas right now it doesn't look likely that anybody else is going to try to leave the EU.
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).
Is it not the case that in the real world economies are cyclical? You need to manage debt and deficits over that cycle. Most developed countries seem to forget this and go all spendy and jam tomorrowish when things look OK and then get shafted when the following recession comes. The absolute debt remains, the GDP doesn't and spending has to go up to cover things like increased unemployment benefits. Over the cycle they ratchet down and debt/GDP worsens until it kills them. I call this the Gordo Fallacy. Is the current mild recovery phase of e.g. Spain going to be enough to meet the next recession? Or put it this way - if they weren't improving strongly 8 years in then they never will.
But that points to a very positive picture for the Eurozone.
Private sector debt has come down very substantially compared to 2007/8 almost everywhere. And once you eliminate the QE debt (which will never need to be repaid) then debt levels are at quarter century lows across the Eurozone*.
TTIP and TPP are both dead at the hands of the next US administration irrespective.
I think there's a good chance of TPP happening under Clinton despite her campaign rhetoric.
(a) She thinks trade deals are good and only changed her tone in response to the Sanders insurgency. There will likely be a Harold Wilson style "with these changes I am satisfied TPP is in the US interest".
(b) More importantly for TPP specifically. is that it is the cornerstone of the US pivot to Asia, where the US aims to retain influence with Asian countries in a competition with China. If TPP dies, the pivot will die with it. There isn't that urgency with TTIP. There are EU issues with it as well. TTIP is at a greater risk IMO.
The Nissan thing can only be good for UKIP. If it transpires that the government has been offering sweeteners, then Farage can claim it's a return to Bennite interventionism, an affront to the taxpayer and a betrayal of Thatcher's free-market legacy. How many free-market Tories would defect to UKIP in these circumstances, appalled by their own government's apostasy? John Redwood surely wouldn't hang around with a bunch of interventionists. If UKIP play this right I can see them winning up to forty seats in the South East.
Still the buzz of a bumble-bee compared to Concorde flying directly over-head with engines on full throttle - as I used to get every day at 11.00 am. Ah, the perils of living in a hill-top water-tower....
Yes, but they come over every minute of the day from 6am until late at night (plus a few before 6am), albeit with some limited respite from swapping between the two runways.
I know from bleary eyed arrivals from Hong Kong quite a few get in before 6am....
Between 11:30pm and 6am Heathrow is restricted by the Government to 5,800 night-time take-offs and landings a year. There is also a night quota limit, which caps the amount of noise the airport can make at night. Around 80% of the night flights at Heathrow are between 4.30-6am with on average around 16 aircraft are scheduled to arrive each day between these hours. Heathrow also has a voluntary ban in place that prevents flights scheduled between 4:30am-6am from landing before 4:30am. We also do not schedule any departures between 11pm and 6am.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Surely easier to effect in a federal system than a unitary one - especially one so densely populated as the UK?
Even if it was done by nation, it wouldn't help. The "problem" is England. Scotland is crying out for immigrants.
The point is that all of those regions have, or soon will have, devolved administrations. (Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool mayoralties begin in the spring).
The Nissan thing can only be good for UKIP. If it transpires that the government has been offering sweeteners, then Farage can claim it's a return to Bennite interventionism, an affront to the taxpayer and a betrayal of Thatcher's free-market legacy. How many free-market Tories would defect to UKIP in these circumstances, appalled by their own government's apostasy? John Redwood surely wouldn't hang around with a bunch of interventionists. If UKIP play this right I can see them winning up to forty seats in the South East.
Nope. Most UKIP support is incoherent and not really motivated by policy. It needs a grand emotional cause to which people can pin all sorts of hope and anger. Europe was perfect.
Presuming we Brexit, it will either disappear because not relevant - or mutate into an angry cospiracy-mongerer's movement (see also Trump). Hopefully the first.
The point is that all of those regions have, or soon will have, devolved administrations. (Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool mayoralties begin in the spring).
Still can't see it working very well technically. But if it does go like this, what choice will Andy Burnham make as presumptive Manchester super-mayor?
Given he's never consciously chosen anything in his career, it's very difficult to call.
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.
Do you think a vibrant, healthy and growing EU will be more disposed to offering the UK a better deal than a moribund, populist and shrinking EU, or vice-versa?
[and the same question to all PBers]
There are so many moving parts I have no idea. The intersection of politics and economics is a long way from rationality...
Both parties self confident is probably the better environment for a negotiation. Substantively I don't think it makes a big difference. People focus on the EU "punishing" the UK. There's undoubtedly an element of that. When a member leaves a membership association, however, by the act of leaving it abandons both obligations and benefits. Even if there is a negotiated interim arrangement, we will drift apart over time as both parties find new ways of doing things that doesn't involve the other. Less trade falls out naturally from our decision to leave the EU.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
The point is that all of those regions have, or soon will have, devolved administrations. (Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool mayoralties begin in the spring).
Still can't see it working very well technically. But if it does go like this, what choice will Andy Burnham make as presumptive Manchester super-mayor?
Given he's never consciously chosen anything in his career, it's very difficult to call.
Manchester will go for free movement, given the option. I'm sure of that (even with Dithery Andy in charge!)
Talking of long delayed infrastructure projects,today is a big day here. Our new road, the "Bay Gateway" finally opens. It has been talked about for 50 years, and I seriously lobbied for it over 20 years ago. Today after a 3 year build and over £100 million cost it opens in about 2 hours. I am off to drive down it later. It connects Heysham and Morecambe to the M6 and is much needed. If our little project took this long, Heaven help Heathrow.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
Surely easier to effect in a federal system than a unitary one - especially one so densely populated as the UK?
Even if it was done by nation, it wouldn't help. The "problem" is England. Scotland is crying out for immigrants.
The point is that all of those regions have, or soon will have, devolved administrations. (Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool mayoralties begin in the spring).
The actual devolution to those regions is pretty small in a global scale, we are nowhere near a federal system. A few transport planning/housing policy powers is immaterial.
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.
Except it's not either/or and furthermore getting a deal with the USA does not preclude us from getting an independent deal with the rest of the world as EU membership does.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
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.
Except it's not either/or and furthermore getting a deal with the USA does not preclude us from getting an independent deal with the rest of the world as EU membership does.
Exactly the point. It is EU membership that has held us back from trading freely with the other 93% of the world. It is a fading protectionist bloc that has no place in the 21st century.
Talking of long delayed infrastructure projects,today is a big day here. Our new road, the "Bay Gateway" finally opens. It has been talked about for 50 years, and I seriously lobbied for it over 20 years ago. Today after a 3 year build and over £100 million cost it opens in about 2 hours. I am off to drive down it later. It connects Heysham and Morecambe to the M6 and is much needed. If our little project took this long, Heaven help Heathrow.
The Aberdeen bypass is currently being built and will be completed in 2019. It was first planned in 1947.
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.
Except it's not either/or and furthermore getting a deal with the USA does not preclude us from getting an independent deal with the rest of the world as EU membership does.
Exactly the point. It is EU membership that has held us back from trading freely with the other 93% of the world. It is a fading protectionist bloc that has no place in the 21st century.
Yes its that argument from you that in large part switched my vote.
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.
Except it's not either/or and furthermore getting a deal with the USA does not preclude us from getting an independent deal with the rest of the world as EU membership does.
Exactly the point. It is EU membership that has held us back from trading freely with the other 93% of the world. It is a fading protectionist bloc that has no place in the 21st century.
Which is why it's such great news that we will be staying in the Customs Union.
The Nissan thing can only be good for UKIP. If it transpires that the government has been offering sweeteners, then Farage can claim it's a return to Bennite interventionism, an affront to the taxpayer and a betrayal of Thatcher's free-market legacy. How many free-market Tories would defect to UKIP in these circumstances, appalled by their own government's apostasy? John Redwood surely wouldn't hang around with a bunch of interventionists. If UKIP play this right I can see them winning up to forty seats in the South East.
I don't think there's much of a market for free markets in Britain, TBH. Con, UKIP and Labour will all swing protectionist simultaneously.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
In a small country like the UK, foreign workers can be based in one urban centre but work all over the UK. Who would check that bricklayers working for a househuilding company based in Nottingham would not work on a site in London?
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?
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.
Except it's not either/or and furthermore getting a deal with the USA does not preclude us from getting an independent deal with the rest of the world as EU membership does.
Exactly the point. It is EU membership that has held us back from trading freely with the other 93% of the world. It is a fading protectionist bloc that has no place in the 21st century.
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Mr. Walker, Germany's exporting strength is helped greatly by having an artificially low exchange rate because its currency is weaker by far than it should be thanks to the eurozone net being cast so wide.
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The EU has taken 7 years to get a free trade deal with Canada. EFTA had one in 2009. The trade deal with the US has just collapsed. It is not in any way serious about trying to get a trade deal with China or India.
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
In a small country like the UK, foreign workers can be based in one urban centre but work all over the UK. Who would check that bricklayers working for a househuilding company based in Nottingham would not work on a site in London?
Some offended London bricklayer would notice and tip off the immigration inspectors who would show up at the building site and revoke the firm's "employing foreigners" license. Or something like that.
The logistics of creating a bunch of imaginary lines across the country that subsets of a company's employees weren't allowed to cross sound a bit mad, but the US manages OK with occupational licensing being limited to states so I suppose it's doable.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
Don't be silly. There's no way The Guardian will ever be popular or profitable.
The Nissan thing can only be good for UKIP. If it transpires that the government has been offering sweeteners, then Farage can claim it's a return to Bennite interventionism, an affront to the taxpayer and a betrayal of Thatcher's free-market legacy. How many free-market Tories would defect to UKIP in these circumstances, appalled by their own government's apostasy? John Redwood surely wouldn't hang around with a bunch of interventionists. If UKIP play this right I can see them winning up to forty seats in the South East.
I don't think there's much of a market for free markets in Britain, TBH. Con, UKIP and Labour will all swing protectionist simultaneously.
We like to have our cake and eat it. We might now be entering a period when we don't get what we want by divine right, but have to line up with everyone else to obtain benefit for ourselves.
Previously we could lay claim to a strong position within the EU, and our special relationship with the US. We shall have to see how the change in these hitherto uniquely beneficial positions affects our national interest.
Mr. Walker, Germany's exporting strength is helped greatly by having an artificially low exchange rate because its currency is weaker by far than it should be thanks to the eurozone net being cast so wide.
No doubt.
But it's not relevant to the point: you can be in the EU and trade very nicely thank you. Indeed, you can be the world's leading advanced exporter.
Therefore, the premise that the EU bloc prevents us from export-led prosperity does not hold.
Mr. Walker, Germany's exporting strength is helped greatly by having an artificially low exchange rate because its currency is weaker by far than it should be thanks to the eurozone net being cast so wide.
No doubt.
But it's not relevant to the point: you can be in the EU and trade very nicely thank you. Indeed, you can be the world's leading advanced exporter.
Therefore, the premise that the EU bloc prevents us from export-led prosperity does not hold.
Yeah but what kind of trade deal has Germany managed to negotiate with Tonga?
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The EU has taken 7 years to get a free trade deal with Canada. EFTA had one in 2009. The trade deal with the US has just collapsed. It is not in any way serious about trying to get a trade deal with China or India.
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
Dunno, EFTA consists of small countries and small countries are usually keen to make trade deals even if some constituencies object. If you look at larger economies like Japan, they tend to be behind the EU.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
Don't be silly. There's no way The Guardian will ever be popular or profitable.
The Guardian is popular but not profitable.
"The statistics show that the Guardian is the most-read news site in the UK with 10.4 million readers, 523,000 more than the Mail Online which has 9.9 million. The Guardian took over from the Mail Online as the most read daily newspaper website in the UK in March.
The report is based on NRS data from July 2012 to June 2013 and comScore data from June 2013. Duplicates are removed so people who read online and in print are not counted twice."
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
Don't be silly. There's no way The Guardian will ever be popular or profitable.
Interesting piece about the prospect of free movement zones within the UK – London, Scotland, NI, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool. Similar to Canadian system whereby foreign workers get visas to work within a single province.
In a small country like the UK, foreign workers can be based in one urban centre but work all over the UK. Who would check that bricklayers working for a househuilding company based in Nottingham would not work on a site in London?
Some offended London bricklayer would notice and tip off the immigration inspectors who would show up at the building site and revoke the firm's "employing foreigners" license. Or something like that.
The logistics of creating a bunch of imaginary lines across the country that subsets of a company's employees weren't allowed to cross sound a bit mad, but the US manages OK with occupational licensing being limited to states so I suppose it's doable.
Indeed, Canada manages it too. Companies could hire unlicensed workers, just as they can hire illegal immigrants now, but they'd be breaking the law. The vast majority of firms won't want to do that, so won't do it.
Mr. Walker, Germany's exporting strength is helped greatly by having an artificially low exchange rate because its currency is weaker by far than it should be thanks to the eurozone net being cast so wide.
No doubt.
But it's not relevant to the point: you can be in the EU and trade very nicely thank you. Indeed, you can be the world's leading advanced exporter.
Therefore, the premise that the EU bloc prevents us from export-led prosperity does not hold.
Germany benefitted from an unsustainable suppression of the Euro which devastated much of the rest of the Eurozone. Not exactly a model to recommend.
The most puzzling thing about Richmond is that very wealthy people spend such huge amounts to live there. House prices are astronomical, but the noise is absolutely fearsome - you really have to spend a few days and nights there to understand quite how fearsome. It is far worse than the noise in some of the neighbouring constituencies. Because the flight paths are very narrow so close to the airport, the degree of noise does vary over quite short distances, but house prices remain astronomical even in the worst-affected parts.
The selection of the parliamentary constituencies selected by Populus is curious. Unsurprisingly the few on the direct incoming flight path, of which Richmond is the prime example, are those most opposed to Heathrow's expansion, while others, barely affected by the noise/pollution but benefiting from the economic factors are generally in favour. I live in Putney (no surprise there then!), Richmond's neighbouring constituency and also very much on the flight path, such that I hope and pray as I sit out on my patio that all the waste ducts on the hundreds of flights every day are firmly shut tight before the aircraft pass over my property. It is precisely because Richmond is such a wonderful part of London and a truly glorious place in which to live that its residents become so exercised by the one blot on their landscape that is Heathrow. I don't know how long ago it has been since Mr. Nabavi "spent a few days and nights there" but the noise levels have decreased very significantly even over the past 5 - 10 years, so much so that there are days when I'm barely conscious of any flights overhead ..... or do I just sound like a geriatric, stone deaf old rocker. Long gone are the dreadful Concorde days, when one had to learn to lip read in order to converse with the neighbours.
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The EU has taken 7 years to get a free trade deal with Canada. EFTA had one in 2009. The trade deal with the US has just collapsed. It is not in any way serious about trying to get a trade deal with China or India.
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
The problem is that your premise is flawed. Of course the EU is declining relatively, just as the US is. The big story of the last twenty years is the closing of the gap between first and third worlds.
But I'd like to hear a German assent to the idea that it's part of some kind of backwater.
Now, you are right to say that bilaterals would probably better suit us, and may even be quicker to agree. But you must also agree that we would have less clout in bilaterals and that our preferred partners are not exactly prioritising free trade at the moment.
And, in order to gain the benefit of this (untested) freedom to agree bilaterals, we must put our nearest, biggest market at risk when we have spent the last forty years shaping our nation as a global hub for intra-European trade.
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
Don't be silly. There's no way The Guardian will ever be popular or profitable.
The Guardian is popular but not profitable.
"The statistics show that the Guardian is the most-read news site in the UK with 10.4 million readers, 523,000 more than the Mail Online which has 9.9 million. The Guardian took over from the Mail Online as the most read daily newspaper website in the UK in March.
The report is based on NRS data from July 2012 to June 2013 and comScore data from June 2013. Duplicates are removed so people who read online and in print are not counted twice."
Mr. Walker, Germany's exporting strength is helped greatly by having an artificially low exchange rate because its currency is weaker by far than it should be thanks to the eurozone net being cast so wide.
No doubt.
But it's not relevant to the point: you can be in the EU and trade very nicely thank you. Indeed, you can be the world's leading advanced exporter.
Therefore, the premise that the EU bloc prevents us from export-led prosperity does not hold.
Germany benefitted from an unsustainable suppression of the Euro which devastated much of the rest of the Eurozone. Not exactly a model to recommend.
Germany's export success - though undoubtedly flattered by a weak Euro - long pre-dates the Euro itself.
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The EU has taken 7 years to get a free trade deal with Canada. EFTA had one in 2009. The trade deal with the US has just collapsed. It is not in any way serious about trying to get a trade deal with China or India.
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
The problem is that your premise is flawed. Of course the EU is declining relatively, just as the US is. The big story of the last twenty years is the closing of the gap between first and third worlds.
But I'd like to hear a German assent to the idea that it's part of some kind of backwater.
Now, you are right to say that bilaterals would probably better suit us, and may even be quicker to agree. But you must also agree that we would have less clout in bilaterals and that our preferred partners are not exactly prioritising free trade at the moment.
And, in order to gain the benefit of this (untested) freedom to agree bilaterals, we must put our nearest, biggest market at risk when we have spent the last forty years shaping our nation as a global hub for intra-European trade.
Nope. Doesn't make sense.
I prefer the sovreignty arguments.
Again ignoring the fact that for the UK the EU is a rapidly shrinking market whilst the rest of the world - including the US - is becoming far more important. And in case you missed it the global hub for intra-European trade - at least in goods - was Rotterdam.
If Zac Goldsmith wins in the Richmond by-election despite his strong Brexit views, will it show that the Richmond remainers are warming to Brexit or at leat are not too bothered about it?
Re: "Nissan's post-Brexit deal could lead to 'colossal' bills for taxpayer " Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Far worse than that it could lead to the Guardian morphing into The Sun ...
Don't be silly. There's no way The Guardian will ever be popular or profitable.
The Guardian is popular but not profitable.
"The statistics show that the Guardian is the most-read news site in the UK with 10.4 million readers, 523,000 more than the Mail Online which has 9.9 million. The Guardian took over from the Mail Online as the most read daily newspaper website in the UK in March.
The report is based on NRS data from July 2012 to June 2013 and comScore data from June 2013. Duplicates are removed so people who read online and in print are not counted twice."
That is a fair point, although I wonder how 'readers' are defined. I imagine that individual articles do quite well out of social media links.
One of the reasons why the Mail Online has lost readership is that it has become very much trashier, comic like and generally downmarket over recent months. So much so that I can't work out which socio-economic group they are targeting .... I wonder whether even they know?
If Zac Goldsmith wins in the Richmond by-election despite his strong Brexit views, will it show that the Richmond remainers are warming to Brexit or at leat are not too bothered about it?
I think it will show that local issues trump Brexit. Not sure you could infer much more than that.
Only if you accept the idea that the EU itself has no interest in free trade agreements with ROW.
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The EU has taken 7 years to get a free trade deal with Canada. EFTA had one in 2009. The trade deal with the US has just collapsed. It is not in any way serious about trying to get a trade deal with China or India.
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
That's a little harsh, Richard.
Of the world's big trade blocs: the US, China, the EU, the Eurasian Economic Union and Mercosur, the EU has by far the largest number FTAs with countries outside it.
The US has FTAs with Australia, Canada, Mexico and errr... that's about it right now. (Although that will change radically in the event TPP is passed.)
China does somewhat better with ASEAN, Pakistan, Chile, New Zealand, Pakistan, Korea, Switzerland and Australia. But, not all of these are true FTAs - there are lots of categories of goods (like luxury watches!) where Swiss exports to China are still subject to tariffs, for example.
The Eurasian Economic Union counts deals with Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Ukraine and Serbia.
Mercosur manages Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon.
The EU has... Turkey, Georgia, the EFTA states, Moldova, Ukraine, Singapore, Canada, Vietnam, and Korea. The EU also has pretty serious agreements with Eastern and South African states that remove the vast bulk of tariffs (see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:75184c8b-f721-4002-87c8-e301d4adef11.0019.01/DOC_2&format=PDF). Indeed, for all the rhetoric on here, the EU is a lot kinder to African imports than any of the other large trading blocs.
If Zac Goldsmith wins in the Richmond by-election despite his strong Brexit views, will it show that the Richmond remainers are warming to Brexit or at leat are not too bothered about it?
Top trolling David
We need to stop this LD attempt at narrative framing: 'a such and such win/majority reduction here means something rubbish about a policy direction that bears no relation to the electorate of a tiny and unrepresentative constituency'.
It is almost as facile as the 'winning here' bar charts....
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The problem is that your premise is flawed. Of course the EU is declining relatively, just as the US is. The big story of the last twenty years is the closing of the gap between first and third worlds.
But I'd like to hear a German assent to the idea that it's part of some kind of backwater.
Now, you are right to say that bilaterals would probably better suit us, and may even be quicker to agree. But you must also agree that we would have less clout in bilaterals and that our preferred partners are not exactly prioritising free trade at the moment.
And, in order to gain the benefit of this (untested) freedom to agree bilaterals, we must put our nearest, biggest market at risk when we have spent the last forty years shaping our nation as a global hub for intra-European trade.
Nope. Doesn't make sense.
I prefer the sovreignty arguments.
Again ignoring the fact that for the UK the EU is a rapidly shrinking market whilst the rest of the world - including the US - is becoming far more important. And in case you missed it the global hub for intra-European trade - at least in goods - was Rotterdam.
Rapidly shrinking? Are you suggesting there is a burning platform here?
And I said *a* global hub not the global hub. You could argue that London is the "Rotterdam of services".
Don't get me wrong. There is a powerful emotional appeal to the idea of a great world out there which we should be trading with.
It plays to our maritime and imperial (based primarily on trading) past, and to the notion that Europe in general is a sclerotic, unreformed hellhole.
But it just doesn't stand up to reason.
I don't think it's possible to make the trade argument in isolation. Nor the immigration argument, if it comes to it. Rather, the Brexit case rests solely on an increased sovreignty to make a range of decisions and let's say a reasonable skepticism of the worst tendencies of the Commission in particular.
But the decisions we repatriate are not the most important ones for our country's future.
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Nicola Sturgeon is expected to publish plans within the next few weeks for Scotland to become the official successor state to the UK and take its place within the European Union.
The blueprint will feature plans for Scotland to forge a soft Brexit on its own within the UK. But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.
lol. It will be vetoed by Spain within seventeen nanoseconds. The example set to Catalonia would give Madrid conniptions
It does seem rather unlikely, although I can imagine some in the EU would be open to it.
A question, then: what mechanisms would such a proposal have to go through in the EU (yet alone the UK), and at what stages could Spain or a.n.other stop it?
That shade of Blue on the Pan Handle as shown on 538.com's state by state political map appears to get ever paler, or is that just my imagination playing tricks?
Battleground states - Remington - No sample sizes given - All 30 Oct
CO - Clinton 45 - Trump 44 FL - Clinton 44 - Trump 48 NV - Clinton 44 - Trump 48 NC - Clinton 45 - Trump 47 OH - Clinton 43 - Trump 48 PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 VA - Clinton 47 .. Trump 43 WI - Clinton 46 .. Trump 42
Note - Except FL little change from 23 Oct from this GOP leaning pollster.
I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
Nicola Sturgeon is expected to publish plans within the next few weeks for Scotland to become the official successor state to the UK and take its place within the European Union.
The blueprint will feature plans for Scotland to forge a soft Brexit on its own within the UK. But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.
lol. It will be vetoed by Spain within seventeen nanoseconds. The example set to Catalonia would give Madrid conniptions
It's an attempt - an inspired one - to square the circle. But it collapses quite quickly. As successor state, is Sturgeon saying Scotland would take the UK's seat on the security council? Of course not.
I think this might be an - unusual - misstep from Sturgeon.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
The problem is that your premise is flawed. Of course the EU is declining relatively, just as the US is. The big story of the last twenty years is the closing of the gap between first and third worlds.
But I'd like to hear a German assent to the idea that it's part of some kind of backwater.
Now, you are right to say that bilaterals would probably better suit us, and may even be quicker to agree. But you must also agree that we would have less clout in bilaterals and that our preferred partners are not exactly prioritising free trade at the moment.
And, in order to gain the benefit of this (untested) freedom to agree bilaterals, we must put our nearest, biggest market at risk when we have spent the last forty years shaping our nation as a global hub for intra-European trade.
Nope. Doesn't make sense.
I prefer the sovreignty arguments.
Again ignoring the fact that for the UK the EU is a rapidly shrinking market whilst the rest of the world - including the US - is becoming far more important. And in case you missed it the global hub for intra-European trade - at least in goods - was Rotterdam.
Rapidly shrinking? Are you suggesting there is a burning platform here?
And I said *a* global hub not the global hub. You could argue that London is the "Rotterdam of services".
Don't get me wrong. There is a powerful emotional appeal to the idea of a great world out there which we should be trading with.
It plays to our maritime and imperial (based primarily on trading) past, and to the notion that Europe in general is a sclerotic, unreformed hellhole.
But it just doesn't stand up to reason.
I don't think it's possible to make the trade argument in isolation. Nor the immigration argument, if it comes to it. Rather, the Brexit case rests solely on an increased sovreignty to make a range of decisions and let's say a reasonable skepticism of the worst tendencies of the Commission in particular.
But the decisions we repatriate are not the most important ones for our country's future.
It stands up very well to reason - all the more so because it does not preclude continuing to trade with the EU. But the bottom line is that the EU will continue to shrink as a share of our export market whether we are a part of it or not and as such we are wise to remove as many barriers to international trade with the other 93% of the world as possible.
'Nicola Sturgeon is expected to publish plans within the next few weeks for Scotland to become the official successor state to the UK and take its place within the European Union.
The blueprint will feature plans for Scotland to forge a soft Brexit on its own within the UK. But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.
Grandstanding nonsense on stilts,but anything to stay in the spotlight and not look completely irrelevant.
Comments
Just listened to Anfam talking about the movement - I must say he spends more time on what I call "the brushtrokes" type of art history, rather than the intellectual intent or social art history of abstract expressionism, which I find by far the more interesting aspect.
But I'm booked for tomorrow morning so thanks!
Edit: of course the mode of putting paint on the canvas was very important, but more critical is why they chose that mode. Anfam says precious little about it.
[and the same question to all PBers]
There are so many moving parts I have no idea. The intersection of politics and economics is a long way from rationality...
Enjoy!
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/
Even if it was done by nation, it wouldn't help. The "problem" is England. Scotland is crying out for immigrants.
But he oversaw something half resembling an industrial strategy for the first time in 30 odd years.
This may even be worse from the point of view of migrant-representing countries than simple national restrictions, because it's actually plausible that other countries in the EU might try to copy it, whereas right now it doesn't look likely that anybody else is going to try to leave the EU.
Private sector debt has come down very substantially compared to 2007/8 almost everywhere. And once you eliminate the QE debt (which will never need to be repaid) then debt levels are at quarter century lows across the Eurozone*.
* Except Greece
(a) She thinks trade deals are good and only changed her tone in response to the Sanders insurgency. There will likely be a Harold Wilson style "with these changes I am satisfied TPP is in the US interest".
(b) More importantly for TPP specifically. is that it is the cornerstone of the US pivot to Asia, where the US aims to retain influence with Asian countries in a competition with China. If TPP dies, the pivot will die with it. There isn't that urgency with TTIP. There are EU issues with it as well. TTIP is at a greater risk IMO.
BBC Archive
Beware the evil eye! The BBC's Wales Today programme took a look at Witchcraft in 1964 #Halloween @BBCWales https://t.co/TvIxb1x4kV
Between 11:30pm and 6am Heathrow is restricted by the Government to 5,800 night-time take-offs and landings a year. There is also a night quota limit, which caps the amount of noise the airport can make at night. Around 80% of the night flights at Heathrow are between 4.30-6am with on average around 16 aircraft are scheduled to arrive each day between these hours. Heathrow also has a voluntary ban in place that prevents flights scheduled between 4:30am-6am from landing before 4:30am. We also do not schedule any departures between 11pm and 6am.
http://www.heathrow.com/noise/heathrow-operations/night-flights
Its really only quiet 11pm - 4.30am - and I know from experience stacked waiting to land there's often a rush of arrivals at 4.30.....
"The path to victory is too narrow". Is that code for "I'm such a nasty nutjob that even UKIP membership won't vote for me?"
Presuming we Brexit, it will either disappear because not relevant - or mutate into an angry cospiracy-mongerer's movement (see also Trump). Hopefully the first.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 44
Note - Clinton +1 & Trump +2 from yesterday
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
But if it does go like this, what choice will Andy Burnham make as presumptive Manchester super-mayor?
Given he's never consciously chosen anything in his career, it's very difficult to call.
IDB/TIPP (31st Oct) Clinton 45% Trump 44% Johnson 4% Stein 2% - Clinton lead down from 2 to 1 on yesterday, 4 to 1 against Friday.
Could it also lead to World War III or could it lead to the second coming or could it lead to the demise of the Guardian newspaper?
Today after a 3 year build and over £100 million cost it opens in about 2 hours. I am off to drive down it later.
It connects Heysham and Morecambe to the M6 and is much needed.
If our little project took this long, Heaven help Heathrow.
Souls to the Polls?
and plagues of boils and it could rain frogs
Share who think Hillary will win dropped from 52% to 49% since Friday. https://t.co/3dnPmmoZoe
Clinton 307 .. Trump 174 .. Toss-Up 57
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-race
Who says arguments here never change minds?
Clinton 46 .. Trump 43
Note - All post Dickileaks
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-emails-comey-poll-politico-morning-consult-230519
Yet it's just agreed one with Canada, South Korea is next, and eventually I do believe there will be one with the US.
That would leave China, Japan, and India as the big beasts left.
Effectively you're making the argument that we are better risking our large, home market (Europe), it's increased clout, and it's slow but steady progress on trade ---
--- for the uncertain abilities of the U.K. a much smaller market (and with less clout) to agree deals to our satisfaction.
Unconvincing.
And we haven't even got onto the reality that Germany et al have actually done rather well export-wise inside the EU despite being part of some kind of fading bloc as you call it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd2w4ygY5o8
Whoa. 4 FBI offices have been quietly investigating Clinton Foundation for months https://t.co/kjKnWaKuLa
Clinton 49 .. Trump 47
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a92016ElectionTrackingNo9.pdf
The EU has utterly failed to realise that it is becoming a backwater as far as world trade is concerned. One reason why our trade with the EU has rapidly dropped whilst that with the rest of the world has risen.
We are far better off negotiating our own bilateral trade deals with the rest of the world that only have to take into account the needs of the two countries involved rather than trying to balance the wishes of 28 separate countries.
The logistics of creating a bunch of imaginary lines across the country that subsets of a company's employees weren't allowed to cross sound a bit mad, but the US manages OK with occupational licensing being limited to states so I suppose it's doable.
Previously we could lay claim to a strong position within the EU, and our special relationship with the US. We shall have to see how the change in these hitherto uniquely beneficial positions affects our national interest.
But it's not relevant to the point: you can be in the EU and trade very nicely thank you. Indeed, you can be the world's leading advanced exporter.
Therefore, the premise that the EU bloc prevents us from export-led prosperity does not hold.
Eh? Eh?
Also, the UK's been bad at exporting for ages. The weaker pound will help improve this.
The Guardian is popular but not profitable.
"The statistics show that the Guardian is the most-read news site in the UK with 10.4 million readers, 523,000 more than the Mail Online which has 9.9 million. The Guardian took over from the Mail Online as the most read daily newspaper website in the UK in March.
The report is based on NRS data from July 2012 to June 2013 and comScore data from June 2013. Duplicates are removed so people who read online and in print are not counted twice."
See https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/nrs-guardian-website-has-523k-more-uk-readers-than-mail-online/s2/a553940/
meow....
I live in Putney (no surprise there then!), Richmond's neighbouring constituency and also very much on the flight path, such that I hope and pray as I sit out on my patio that all the waste ducts on the hundreds of flights every day are firmly shut tight before the aircraft pass over my property. It is precisely because Richmond is such a wonderful part of London and a truly glorious place in which to live that its residents become so exercised by the one blot on their landscape that is Heathrow.
I don't know how long ago it has been since Mr. Nabavi "spent a few days and nights there" but the noise levels have decreased very significantly even over the past 5 - 10 years, so much so that there are days when I'm barely conscious of any flights overhead ..... or do I just sound like a geriatric, stone deaf old rocker. Long gone are the dreadful Concorde days, when one had to learn to lip read in order to converse with the neighbours.
Of course the EU is declining relatively, just as the US is. The big story of the last twenty years is the closing of the gap between first and third worlds.
But I'd like to hear a German assent to the idea that it's part of some kind of backwater.
Now, you are right to say that bilaterals would probably better suit us, and may even be quicker to agree. But you must also agree that we would have less clout in bilaterals and that our preferred partners are not exactly prioritising free trade at the moment.
And, in order to gain the benefit of this (untested) freedom to agree bilaterals, we must put our nearest, biggest market at risk when we have spent the last forty years shaping our nation as a global hub for intra-European trade.
Nope. Doesn't make sense.
I prefer the sovreignty arguments.
As does our export weakness.
Clue: it's not about the EU.
Sorry.
Of the world's big trade blocs: the US, China, the EU, the Eurasian Economic Union and Mercosur, the EU has by far the largest number FTAs with countries outside it.
The US has FTAs with Australia, Canada, Mexico and errr... that's about it right now. (Although that will change radically in the event TPP is passed.)
China does somewhat better with ASEAN, Pakistan, Chile, New Zealand, Pakistan, Korea, Switzerland and Australia. But, not all of these are true FTAs - there are lots of categories of goods (like luxury watches!) where Swiss exports to China are still subject to tariffs, for example.
The Eurasian Economic Union counts deals with Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Ukraine and Serbia.
Mercosur manages Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon.
The EU has... Turkey, Georgia, the EFTA states, Moldova, Ukraine, Singapore, Canada, Vietnam, and Korea. The EU also has pretty serious agreements with Eastern and South African states that remove the vast bulk of tariffs (see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:75184c8b-f721-4002-87c8-e301d4adef11.0019.01/DOC_2&format=PDF). Indeed, for all the rhetoric on here, the EU is a lot kinder to African imports than any of the other large trading blocs.
We need to stop this LD attempt at narrative framing: 'a such and such win/majority reduction here means something rubbish about a policy direction that bears no relation to the electorate of a tiny and unrepresentative constituency'.
It is almost as facile as the 'winning here' bar charts....
And I said *a* global hub not the global hub.
You could argue that London is the "Rotterdam of services".
Don't get me wrong. There is a powerful emotional appeal to the idea of a great world out there which we should be trading with.
It plays to our maritime and imperial (based primarily on trading) past, and to the notion that Europe in general is a sclerotic, unreformed hellhole.
But it just doesn't stand up to reason.
I don't think it's possible to make the trade argument in isolation. Nor the immigration argument, if it comes to it. Rather, the Brexit case rests solely on an increased sovreignty to make a range of decisions and let's say a reasonable skepticism of the worst tendencies of the Commission in particular.
But the decisions we repatriate are not the most important ones for our country's future.
A question, then: what mechanisms would such a proposal have to go through in the EU (yet alone the UK), and at what stages could Spain or a.n.other stop it?
With a unified UKIP+CON candidate in Richmond the case for progressives to do same is overwhelming. Instead we have LAB's tedious tribalism
CO - Clinton 45 - Trump 44
FL - Clinton 44 - Trump 48
NV - Clinton 44 - Trump 48
NC - Clinton 45 - Trump 47
OH - Clinton 43 - Trump 48
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43
VA - Clinton 47 .. Trump 43
WI - Clinton 46 .. Trump 42
Note - Except FL little change from 23 Oct from this GOP leaning pollster.
http://20an0w2e66jla4rfm1idisr1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ABC_Press_Release-103016.pdf
I think this might be an - unusual - misstep from Sturgeon.
'Nicola Sturgeon is expected to publish plans within the next few weeks for Scotland to become the official successor state to the UK and take its place within the European Union.
The blueprint will feature plans for Scotland to forge a soft Brexit on its own within the UK. But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.
Grandstanding nonsense on stilts,but anything to stay in the spotlight and not look completely irrelevant.