SeanF: "I think one should always be prepared to question one's assumptions.
All things being equal, I think the impact of Brexit, over the course of 10-15 years will be that economic growth over that period will be very slightly less than would otherwise have been the case. However, I think the main determinant of economic growth rates will be the policies pursued domestically over that period.
My main concern about the EU has always been political, that's its institutions have obtained too much power, and show no sign of being prepared to return powers to member States.</"
No one knows for certain, though the balance of probability does not justify your optimism, so it is therefore, just hope. I share that hope even if that means I am wrong and I will be massively relieved.
The EU is of course political. It has never pretended to be otherwise. There has been a lot of myths and lies built around the UK Eurosceptic position where they have pretended that EU officials claimed it was only a trading block. It isn't, and never was, but it also need not be ultra federalist either as that is only a strand of opinion in Europe. Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
But hey, who knows, the disgraced former GP may win us loads of trade deals all over the world and we may even get a deal with the US where they don't treat us as a very junior partner.
My view remains as it was before the referendum: the UK could be a success inside, or outside, the EU.
IMV we've picked the harder course, but it will still be possible for Brexit to turn out 'well' (and pick your own measure for that).
However IMO the Brexiteers (e.g. the ERG) are actively heading us in the other direction. They are making a messy Brexit that really hurts people (*) much more likely.
(*) Surprisingly enough, many of them will be insulated from the worst if the sh*t hits the fan.
How is that relevant to what I wrote? What I wrote is the data shows the UK outperformed all other EU27 nations in a year of maximum uncertainty.
Am I a little bit concerned? Yes.
Same question reversed ars you even a little bit optimistic that the country may have made a seriously positive decision?
No, as per my other comment a second ago, I accept that there is a possibility it could turn out to be benign, but the balance of evidence and my common sense as a business person tells me that is highly unlikely. As for it being positive I cannot accept that from my perspective and values it cannot ever be viewed as positive or optimistic as it is something that was based on nationalistic tendencies and for many (though I accept not all) base instincts of dislike or even hatred of foreigners. I am fundamentally an internationalist and one nation Tory and I look forward to the day when I may be in my 80s or 90s when the UK is readmitted to it's natural family of European nations.
So you accuse me of being like a flat-earther or religious zealot for thinking Brexit will be positive but could be negative ... but you think that Brexit will be negative and can't be positive? Seema that you're the more zealous one refusing to see any alternative to your beliefs.
As for being a European nation I find that rather parochial. The UK is a global nation not a European one. I see no reason we can't be in the same global family of nations as Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc... or Singapore, Malaysia, Brazil or many other successful non European nations. Why do you limit internationalism to one small continent?
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
So it's a win-win for every country except the UK. Brexit dividend.
.
But not dramatic enough for (m)any people to notice, perhaps completely invisible to the man on the street.
And we voted for it in return for..what? Being forced to allow more non-EU migrants to come to this country.
Yes it does sum up Brexit perfectly. Brexit Britain is outperforming all EU27 nations.
?
So far, no.
That doesn't mean that there isn't potential for a car crash Brexit to do damage.
Thank you for your honest answer. As someone that thinks the whole idea has been sold on a false prospectus and will lead to serious damage to our economy I do accept that there is a chance I could be wrong and it all turns out to be benign. For something that is this big it does seem rather quasi-religious to have such faith that you are not in the slightest concerned that it could possibly be a serious mistake?
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments.
I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
DavidL: "That question is not directed to me and sorry to butt in but it is an interesting one.
As a leaver I always accepted that leaving the EU would cause a period of uncertainty and some forgone growth if that uncertainty would not have occurred (although a decision to remain on a 52:48 basis would perhaps have had its own uncertainties). I think that foregone growth was greatly exaggerated. So far I have been right but we haven't left yet, the negotiation process has been conducted sub-optimally and there is still a risk of things being disrupted more severely.
Looking forward I think that there is a good chance that a UK not burdened with the excessive bureaucracy of the EU and focussed on its own requirements might make better decisions and have better results. But this is only a chance, it is by no means impossible that our political class will not continue to screw things up even without the EU distracting them.
Is it possible that instead we will find ourselves subject to much lower growth falling behind an EU no longer held up by UK intransigence? Yes, it's possible.
I am not sure we will ever know but in 10 years time we will be able to compare the performance of the EZ and the UK. Even if we have grown faster (and I think we will) that does not prove that leaving was a good idea in GDP terms because we might have grown faster inside as well (probably would have done in my view). If we have grown more slowly then we will need to think about why and whether this was such a good idea. But the EU we would consider rejoining at that point may not look like the EU we are leaving. "
Thank you, a good answer that is balanced and thoughtful. Without parallel universes we will never know if everything remains as benign as you hope. If I had more time than I have I would answer the "bureaucracy question" in more detail, but suffice it to say I suspect we will end up with considerably more rather than less which ever end of the brexit spectrum we end up with. This is the nature of Britain's ruling class. Business will still trade with Europe however damaging the Brexit process, so most of the "red-tape" will be precisely the same. I believe we will rejoin, maybe in 30 years due to shifting public opinion, cultural shift and demographics, but on greatly less favourable terms than we leave.
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Even though most in both parties would likke to fire their own leaders, let alone the opposition.
She wants the party Chairman to stop people from joining the party?
Surely Soubry needs to accept that as a remainer she's in the minority within the Tories ? My ex local MP Lee Rowley is becoming quite anti-fracking but he obviously observes it is Gov't policy within England to not be against development on a national level.
She should 'accept' it in the same way that the bastards accepted John Major's policies on the EU in the mid-1990s.
The membership of the Tories has always been highly eurosceptic though. It's like recognising the sun rises in the east.
The membership has a history of being homophobic. Should the party follow suit?
The party and the government's policy on homosexuality is equality, same sex marriage and respect. People who don't have those views should not be welcomed into the party (and before TUD makes the point that includes some Scottish councillors with "interesting" views). But to try to stop people joining because they support the declared policy of the government is demented.
Och, you're no fun.
It's odd that the SCons with certainly the best known gay leader in UK politics also seem to have an ambivalent attitude to having those people with 'interesting' views as elected members (what the wider membership is like God only knows).
LOL. In reality I think it is largely a generational thing. I think it is really surprising and welcome how completely uncontroversial gay marriage now is.
Is general societal and legal acceptance of homosexuality the biggest societal change in the last twenty years - not just in the UK, but in many countries around the world? If so, it's happened remarkably quickly and easily.
Kohli gets his 100. Do they declare or go berserk?
If I were India I would do the latter and look to crush any remaining morale in the England camp. This series is going to be up for grabs after this humiliation.
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments.
I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
We were always sovereign, sunshine.
Except we chose not to exercise that, for the purposes of EU membership.
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Kohli gets his 100. Do they declare or go berserk?
If I were India I would do the latter and look to crush any remaining morale in the England camp. This series is going to be up for grabs after this humiliation.
Let him get to 6,000 test runs then declare, put England in for a couple of hours tonight chasing more runs than have ever been chased before.
(This post completely unrelated to me having a large pile of cash on India at 1/10).
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
No I don't think that. The option of firing lawmakers is possible in a General Election. Just because you may not win the election doesn't mean we don't have the choice collectively as a nation. There is no EU equivalent to our General Election.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
DavidL: "That question is not directed to me and sorry to butt in but it is an interesting one.
Looking forward I think that there is a good chance that a UK not burdened with the excessive bureaucracy of the EU and focussed on its own requirements might make better decisions and have better results. But this is only a chance, it is by no means impossible that our political class will not continue to screw things up even without the EU distracting them.
Is it possible that instead we will find ourselves subject to much lower growth falling behind an EU no longer held up by UK intransigence? Yes, it's possible.
I am not sure we will ever know but in 10 years time we will be able to compare the performance of the EZ and the UK. Even if we have grown faster (and I think we will) that does not prove that leaving was a good idea in GDP terms because we might have grown faster inside as well (probably would have done in my view). If we have grown more slowly then we will need to think about why and whether this was such a good idea. But the EU we would consider rejoining at that point may not look like the EU we are leaving. "
Thank you, a good answer that is balanced and thoughtful. Without parallel universes we will never know if everything remains as benign as you hope. If I had more time than I have I would answer the "bureaucracy question" in more detail, but suffice it to say I suspect we will end up with considerably more rather than less which ever end of the brexit spectrum we end up with. This is the nature of Britain's ruling class. Business will still trade with Europe however damaging the Brexit process, so most of the "red-tape" will be precisely the same. I believe we will rejoin, maybe in 30 years due to shifting public opinion, cultural shift and demographics, but on greatly less favourable terms than we leave.
With your comment of most of the "red-tape" will remain just because we trade with Europe is incorrect. EU "red-tape" splits into three main areas product, social and environmental. If you are outside the EU to sell goods into the EU you only need to comply with the product regs. So stuff like working time directives or the environmental requirements of REACH are not required. So the "red-tape" remaining depends on the deal.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
I don't think it is inevitable, just very likely. I find it very amusing that those of you that hate the EU so much as you do, might find yourselves back in a version of it that is less benign to nationalists than it currently is. I say it as often as I can as I know that nationalists (not all leavers fall in that camp) are essentially negative people who fear the Germans haha
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
Whilst I would have a concern about how easy it will be to get the relevant figures my expectation is that by 2020 that percentage will at least have been maintained and is more likely to grow than shrink. Approximately 90% of the growth in financial services will be outside the EU in that period and London is well placed to benefit.
Why is London better placed than Hong Kong, Singapore or any city in the EU like Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris or Wall Street ?
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
It's odd that the SCons with certainly the best known gay leader in UK politics also seem to have an ambivalent attitude to having those people with 'interesting' views as elected members (what the wider membership is like God only knows).
LOL. In reality I think it is largely a generational thing. I think it is really surprising and welcome how completely uncontroversial gay marriage now is.
Is general societal and legal acceptance of homosexuality the biggest societal change in the last twenty years - not just in the UK, but in many countries around the world? If so, it's happened remarkably quickly and easily.
In the west it has. In other countries with more rapidly growing populations homosexuality remains illegal and in some they get thrown off buildings. But enough about Corbyn's friends.
In the UK it has in my view been a consequence of the increasing weakness of organised religion. Once your morality is no longer determined by centuries old social concepts written in a book it becomes difficult to understand why people's' sexual orientation is a matter for anyone but themselves and why we should treat them differently as a result. The US has found it harder because religion has more of a grip there.
I would say the biggest societal change is that we no longer accept the heads of our church as being entitled to determine morality. Same sex marriage is only one consequence of that.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
One of the issues is that the whole discussion has been based on GDP. I do not want to imply that I speak for all leavers but to me their are more important issues than whether GDP growth in 2030 is +34% or +27% (treasury severe shock forecast). I want to be able to fire the people that make the laws, I want to empower our lawmakers, I want transparency in the law making process not some hidden negotiation, that was never questioned by the MP's until agreed and could not be changed and was then signed by the PM skulking into a darkened room. I believe that one input makes better decisions than 28 competiting interests, I believe bilateral trade agreements where the UK represents itself with result in quicker and better deals for both sides. I do not believe that the EU with its regional funds or its input on the environment across 28 countries is beneficial or efficient. I could go on, but I will trade all these for 7 points of GDP growth over 14 years. Remain need to make the case that 28 inputs make better decisions, that we have more influence around the world being in the EU, etc, etc. They have made none of these arguments. I also believe all this discussion about the future with the Miller case, the Lords nailing their flags to the mast the MP's that have suddenly had to discuss their core feelings and principles about who governs the UK has been fantastic. We have started the process of transparency and IMO this is a good first move.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
Then it wouldn’t be sovereign. Unless you think South Dakota is sovereign.
DavidL: "That question is not directed to me and sorry to butt in but it is an interesting one.
Looking forward I think that there is a good chance that a UK not burdened with the excessive bureaucracy of the EU and focussed on its own requirements might make better decisions and have better results. But this is only a chance, it is by no means impossible that our political class will not continue to screw things up even without the EU distracting them.
Is it possible that instead we will find ourselves subject to much lower growth falling behind an EU no longer held up by UK intransigence? Yes, it's possible.
I am not sure we will ever know but in 10 years time we will be able to compare the performance of the EZ and the UK. Even if we have grown faster (and I think we will) that does not prove that leaving was a good idea in GDP terms because we might have grown faster inside as well (probably would have done in my view). If we have grown more slowly then we will need to think about why and whether this was such a good idea. But the EU we would consider rejoining at that point may not look like the EU we are leaving. "
Thank you, a good answer that is balanced and thoughtful. Without parallel universes we will never know if everything remains as benign as you hope. If I had more time than I have I would answer the "bureaucracy question" in more detail, but suffice it to say I suspect we will end up with considerably more rather than less which ever end of the brexit spectrum we end up with. This is the nature of Britain's ruling class. Business will still trade with Europe however damaging the Brexit process, so most of the "red-tape" will be precisely the same. I believe we will rejoin, maybe in 30 years due to shifting public opinion, cultural shift and demographics, but on greatly less favourable terms than we leave.
With your comment of most of the "red-tape" will remain just because we trade with Europe is incorrect. EU "red-tape" splits into three main areas product, social and environmental. If you are outside the EU to sell goods into the EU you only need to comply with the product regs. So stuff like working time directives or the environmental requirements of REACH are not required. So the "red-tape" remaining depends on the deal.
You are quite correct, though a Corbyn government which has been made more likely by Brexit will not water down the other two areas, and it is even unlikely a Tory one will either. Bad luck!
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?
The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
Let's refight the EUref campaign all over aga- godammit, you started without me.
More of a debate about whether it was wise, though there is still the issue to be fought over hard Brexit or Soft!
I genuinely don't think there will be a single answer to that question. Over the next five years, certainly 'unwise', in economic terms - you don't unpick two decades of economic and supply chain integration without pain. After that, it's ineffable. As we have discussed on here to the point of nausea, whether the UK prospers or not depends on many factors.
However, like Pascal's wager, the smart money should always be on backing Remain; Brexit is going to be the albatross hung round the neck of every negative event from now until eternity or Scott gets bored of posting tweets on PB, whichever comes first.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
The USA is the ambition for the EU and in many ways is already more interventionist and protectionist than the USA is. For example on labour laws the EU is more prescriptive than the federal government is.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
Then it wouldn’t be sovereign. Unless you think South Dakota is sovereign.
You're right. It was better than that. We are and were sovereign *and* we had a say in our neighbouring large trading bloc.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?
The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.
It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.
It's odd that the SCons with certainly the best known gay leader in UK politics also seem to have an ambivalent attitude to having those people with 'interesting' views as elected members (what the wider membership is like God only knows).
LOL. In reality I think it is largely a generational thing. I think it is really surprising and welcome how completely uncontroversial gay marriage now is.
Is general societal and legal acceptance of homosexuality the biggest societal change in the last twenty years - not just in the UK, but in many countries around the world? If so, it's happened remarkably quickly and easily.
In the west it has. In other countries with more rapidly growing populations homosexuality remains illegal and in some they get thrown off buildings. But enough about Corbyn's friends.
In the UK it has in my view been a consequence of the increasing weakness of organised religion. Once your morality is no longer determined by centuries old social concepts written in a book it becomes difficult to understand why people's' sexual orientation is a matter for anyone but themselves and why we should treat them differently as a result. The US has found it harder because religion has more of a grip there.
I would say the biggest societal change is that we no longer accept the heads of our church as being entitled to determine morality. Same sex marriage is only one consequence of that.
One could however, imagine a non-religious society deciding to persecute homosexuals on eugenic grounds, as Stalin and other communists did.
What is curious is that 50 years ago, the Middle East and North Africa was generally far more accepting of homosexuality than Western societies were at the time.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
Whilst I would have a concern about how easy it will be to get the relevant figures my expectation is that by 2020 that percentage will at least have been maintained and is more likely to grow than shrink. Approximately 90% of the growth in financial services will be outside the EU in that period and London is well placed to benefit.
Why is London better placed than Hong Kong, Singapore or any city in the EU like Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris or Wall Street ?
Several of those will do well but London has significant advantages. It speaks English. It has an economically important timezone largely to itself. It has huge liquidity and expertise. It has English law which is increasingly applied internationally. It has skilled, flexible and experienced regulators. It is very open to new money (sometimes overly so) and new ideas. It is a place where a lot of people want to live. It has critical mass in a range of complimentary areas. It has a Bank of last resort capable of responding to a crisis. It has a relatively stable and predictable tax system. It has good infrastructure for Financial Services.
Most of your alternatives tick some of these boxes. Very few, if any, tick them all.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
How could I have "binned Cameron"?
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
How could I have "binned Cameron"?
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
No, as with any electoral system, you would have had to persuade a large number of other voters. As it happens, they didn't agree on much, except that they wanted to bin the LibDems.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
How could I have "binned Cameron"?
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
We have these things called General Elections. Something that the Commission is lacking.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
Then it wouldn’t be sovereign. Unless you think South Dakota is sovereign.
Oh dear, I'd better explain the sovereignty thing again. Member states of the EU are sovereign as they have the right to leave, which, regrettably to my taste 52% of our electorate chose. By contrast, Scotland, like South Dekota, is not sovereign. It cannot choose to have a referendum on leaving UK or EU without reference to Westminster. It cannot declare war. It does not have a seat at the UN or other supra national bodies. Sovereign states may choose to pool sovereignty and law making by international treaty, such as EU, NATO, UN. Britain chooses to have a foreign country (USA) have its armed forces based on our soil, a situation which many would regard as a much bigger surrender of sovereignty that being a member of the EU. Anyone that voted Leave on the sovereignty ticket was well and truly conned.
That's deeply worrying. On a related not, I learnt last week that my employer is going to move its entire logistics operation to the Netherlands. This is purely due to Brexit and will be done regardless of what, if any, Brexit deal is eventually done. What struck me was how casual everyone was about it; it was just treated as something that obviously has to be done. I imagine a similar thing is going on in businesses up and down the land.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
Then it wouldn’t be sovereign. Unless you think South Dakota is sovereign.
Oh dear, I'd better explain the sovereignty thing again. Member states of the EU are sovereign as they have the right to leave, which, regrettably to my taste 52% of our electorate chose. By contrast, Scotland, like South Dekota, is not sovereign. It cannot choose to have a referendum on leaving UK or EU without reference to Westminster. It cannot declare war. It does not have a seat at the UN or other supra national bodies. Sovereign states may choose to pool sovereignty and law making by international treaty, such as EU, NATO, UN. Britain chooses to have a foreign country (USA) have its armed forces based on our soil, a situation which many would regard as a much bigger surrender of sovereignty that being a member of the EU. Anyone that voted Leave on the sovereignty ticket was well and truly conned.
Yeah, the UK agreed not to exercise its sovereignty in certain areas for purposes of EU membership. I think we all get that bit.
Kohli gets his 100. Do they declare or go berserk?
If I were India I would do the latter and look to crush any remaining morale in the England camp. This series is going to be up for grabs after this humiliation.
Let him get to 6,000 test runs then declare, put England in for a couple of hours tonight chasing more runs than have ever been chased before.
(This post completely unrelated to me having a large pile of cash on India at 1/10).
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
Whilst I would have a concern about how easy it will be to get the relevant figures my expectation is that by 2020 that percentage will at least have been maintained and is more likely to grow than shrink. Approximately 90% of the growth in financial services will be outside the EU in that period and London is well placed to benefit.
Why is London better placed than Hong Kong, Singapore or any city in the EU like Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris or Wall Street ?
Three things. One is geography and rotation of the earth. Basically, you end up with financial centres being in New York, somewhere near London, and the Far East so that trading can follow the sun, round the clock. London is basically competing with the rest of Europe for our time zone.
Second is language. We speak English and so does New York and Hong Kong. To be fair, so does Dublin and well, everywhere in Europe speaks English in dealing rooms.
Third is tradition, infrastructure and network effects. There are lots of banks in London because there are lots of banks in London (and support firms like specialist accountants, lawyers, brokers and so on). Just as there are lots of software companies in Silicon Valley and film studios in Hollywood.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Much like how the US states would have left, without a deal?
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Much like how the US states would have left, without a deal?
No because I'm pretty sure (someone correct me) that if Kentucky decided to secede then they would have found a large amount of military hardware heading towards them pronto.
But I've no idea.
I'd say use the battleship that's coming over the hill.
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
How could I have "binned Cameron"?
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
We have these things called General Elections. Something that the Commission is lacking.
The European Commission (see my posts earlier) has considerably more democratic accountability than many of our institutions: The Monarchy (sorry Ma'am), The House of Lords, numerous QUANGOs. We do not have general elections for these bodies (some might argue we should) and it is extreme of ignorance and arrogance for us to accuse the EU of being "undemocratic". The Commission is more akin to the Secretary General and supporting staff of the UN and NATO. They draw their authority by delegated powers through heads of government.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Much like how the US states would have left, without a deal?
No because I'm pretty sure (someone correct me) that if Kentucky decided to secede then they would have found a large amount of military hardware heading towards them pronto.
But I've no idea.
I'd say use the battleship that's coming over the hill.
We'll call it leaving in a disorderly fashion, shall we?
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes en up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Much like how the US states would have left, without a deal?
No because I'm pretty sure (someone correct me) that if Kentucky decided to secede then they would have found a large amount of military hardware heading towards them pronto.
But I've no idea.
I'd say use the battleship that's coming over the hill.
We'll call it leaving in a disorderly fashion, shall we?
Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.
Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case
How much luck did our representative have last time?
The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson
Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.
How could I have "binned Cameron"?
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
We have these things called General Elections. Something that the Commission is lacking.
The European Commission (see my posts earlier) has considerably more democratic accountability than many of our institutions: The Monarchy (sorry Ma'am), The House of Lords, numerous QUANGOs. We do not have general elections for these bodies (some might argue we should) and it is extreme of ignorance and arrogance for us to accuse the EU of being "undemocratic". The Commission is more akin to the Secretary General and supporting staff of the UN and NATO. They draw their authority by delegated powers through heads of government.
Of course, our Head of Government came there by highly questionable means. Although all of them were completely acceptable to our PB Tories.
"The costumes had been used in previous parades to teach students about the Prophet Muhammad's faith and beliefs, she added."
Remember this is Indonesia
"Indonesia has endured a spate of deadly militant violence in recent years.
The 17,000 island archipelago, which has the world's biggest Muslim population, suffered its worst attack in a decade in May after ISIS-inspired suicide bombers attacked several churches.
Indonesia's deadliest terror attack was the 2002 Bali bombing which killed over 200 people."
Thanks Mr Topping. , How many times does this need to be explained to brexiters? It is because US states are not independent sovereign states. Sadly it is a sad indictment of the Remain campaign that no-one nailed this sovereignty argument. As I said earlier anyone who voted Leave because of sovereignty was seriously juped
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
Yes, which is there because we are (as are the other 27) an independent sovereign state, and we, unilaterally, as is our right under an international treaty chose to give a referendum question to our electorate which came back with a self harming answer. We are/were, always have been since the dark ages a SOVEREIGN STATE!!! The suggestion we did not have sovereignty while part of the EU is a massive lie
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
Yes but what if as well as always having been sovereign, Canada also had a powerful voice in the US House of Representatives and Senate?
That is what we have just given up.
EU states are sovereign to the same extent US states are.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
No they're not. Kentucky couldn't vote to leave the US tomorrow, now, could they?
It could if the USA passed a Constitutional Amendment introducing an Article 50 equivalent like the Lisbon Treaty did. We aren't leaving via our own unilateral measures but instead via a mechanism within the EU's constitution.
ie no it couldn't.
Philip does raise an interesting point. What was the situation before Lisbon?
First, it's not interesting. He is saying that if his uncle was a woman....
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign ) but I imagine we'd have gone straight to no deal. Who knows!?
Much like how the US states would have left, without a deal?
No because I'm pretty sure (someone correct me) that if Kentucky decided to secede then they would have found a large amount of military hardware heading towards them pronto.
But I've no idea.
I'd say use the battleship that's coming over the hill.
Indeed, when 11 States did secede 150 years ago, there was a bit of a fracas.
Comments
All things being equal, I think the impact of Brexit, over the course of 10-15 years will be that economic growth over that period will be very slightly less than would otherwise have been the case. However, I think the main determinant of economic growth rates will be the policies pursued domestically over that period.
My main concern about the EU has always been political, that's its institutions have obtained too much power, and show no sign of being prepared to return powers to member States.</"
No one knows for certain, though the balance of probability does not justify your optimism, so it is therefore, just hope. I share that hope even if that means I am wrong and I will be massively relieved.
The EU is of course political. It has never pretended to be otherwise. There has been a lot of myths and lies built around the UK Eurosceptic position where they have pretended that EU officials claimed it was only a trading block. It isn't, and never was, but it also need not be ultra federalist either as that is only a strand of opinion in Europe. Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
But hey, who knows, the disgraced former GP may win us loads of trade deals all over the world and we may even get a deal with the US where they don't treat us as a very junior partner.
IMV we've picked the harder course, but it will still be possible for Brexit to turn out 'well' (and pick your own measure for that).
However IMO the Brexiteers (e.g. the ERG) are actively heading us in the other direction. They are making a messy Brexit that really hurts people (*) much more likely.
(*) Surprisingly enough, many of them will be insulated from the worst if the sh*t hits the fan.
As for being a European nation I find that rather parochial. The UK is a global nation not a European one. I see no reason we can't be in the same global family of nations as Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc... or Singapore, Malaysia, Brazil or many other successful non European nations. Why do you limit internationalism to one small continent?
For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.
As a leaver I always accepted that leaving the EU would cause a period of uncertainty and some forgone growth if that uncertainty would not have occurred (although a decision to remain on a 52:48 basis would perhaps have had its own uncertainties). I think that foregone growth was greatly exaggerated. So far I have been right but we haven't left yet, the negotiation process has been conducted sub-optimally and there is still a risk of things being disrupted more severely.
Looking forward I think that there is a good chance that a UK not burdened with the excessive bureaucracy of the EU and focussed on its own requirements might make better decisions and have better results. But this is only a chance, it is by no means impossible that our political class will not continue to screw things up even without the EU distracting them.
Is it possible that instead we will find ourselves subject to much lower growth falling behind an EU no longer held up by UK intransigence? Yes, it's possible.
I am not sure we will ever know but in 10 years time we will be able to compare the performance of the EZ and the UK. Even if we have grown faster (and I think we will) that does not prove that leaving was a good idea in GDP terms because we might have grown faster inside as well (probably would have done in my view). If we have grown more slowly then we will need to think about why and whether this was such a good idea. But the EU we would consider rejoining at that point may not look like the EU we are leaving. "
Thank you, a good answer that is balanced and thoughtful. Without parallel universes we will never know if everything remains as benign as you hope. If I had more time than I have I would answer the "bureaucracy question" in more detail, but suffice it to say I suspect we will end up with considerably more rather than less which ever end of the brexit spectrum we end up with. This is the nature of Britain's ruling class. Business will still trade with Europe however damaging the Brexit process, so most of the "red-tape" will be precisely the same. I believe we will rejoin, maybe in 30 years due to shifting public opinion, cultural shift and demographics, but on greatly less favourable terms than we leave.
Kohli century.
India 447 runs ahead
Prediction: Jennings will be out before the end of the day
If I were India I would do the latter and look to crush any remaining morale in the England camp. This series is going to be up for grabs after this humiliation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/20/gatwick-staff-resort-writing-flight-information-whiteboards/
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
(This post completely unrelated to me having a large pile of cash on India at 1/10).
Edit: We got him!
So the "red-tape" remaining depends on the deal.
In the UK it has in my view been a consequence of the increasing weakness of organised religion. Once your morality is no longer determined by centuries old social concepts written in a book it becomes difficult to understand why people's' sexual orientation is a matter for anyone but themselves and why we should treat them differently as a result. The US has found it harder because religion has more of a grip there.
I would say the biggest societal change is that we no longer accept the heads of our church as being entitled to determine morality. Same sex marriage is only one consequence of that.
That is what we have just given up.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
UK, Opinium poll:
CON-ECR: 39% (+3)
LAB-S&D: 38% (-2)
LDEM-ALDE: 7% (-1)
UKIP-EFDD: 7% (-1)
Field work: 14/08/2018-17/08/2018
Sample size: 2,003"
It ends, of course, "wrong us, do we not revenge?".
However, like Pascal's wager, the smart money should always be on backing Remain; Brexit is going to be the albatross hung round the neck of every negative event from now until eternity or Scott gets bored of posting tweets on PB, whichever comes first.
There are many treaties between Canada and the USA: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Canada–United_States_border.html
We are the UK.
What is curious is that 50 years ago, the Middle East and North Africa was generally far more accepting of homosexuality than Western societies were at the time.
Every Canadian I know is content not to have Representatives and Senators. We've given up what they don't want. On purpose and without regret.
Most of your alternatives tick some of these boxes. Very few, if any, tick them all.
Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.
NEW THREAD AND I DECLINE THE OPPORTUNITY OF A FIRST
Second is language. We speak English and so does New York and Hong Kong. To be fair, so does Dublin and well, everywhere in Europe speaks English in dealing rooms.
Third is tradition, infrastructure and network effects. There are lots of banks in London because there are lots of banks in London (and support firms like specialist accountants, lawyers, brokers and so on). Just as there are lots of software companies in Silicon Valley and film studios in Hollywood.
As to before Lisbon? No idea. We could of course always have left (having always been sovereign
But I've no idea.
I'd say use the battleship that's coming over the hill.
https://quora.com/What-would-happen-today-if-a-state-tried-to-leave-the-United-States-and-become-an-independent-nation-How-would-other-states-and-the-federal-government-react-Would-they-use-the-military-to-suppress-this-independence