Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reasoning is thusly. Everyone (?) agrees that the SM+CU is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and our Remainer friends are very fond of claiming ownership of it (a bit like Labour and the NHS). However, if we were to become a third country with an FTA NIESR estimate that the 2030 UK economy would be 3.9% smaller than 2030 UK/EU28 economy.
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mean we'll be performing less well than our European neighbours. I remember that being a big deal in the seventies. Do you really want to feel like a poor relation when you are in Paris or Berlin? And remember that comes on top of the big chunk of wealth anyone with a positive bank balance lost when the pound fell. It still sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
Ah, I get it (if you're right!). So in the end she can choose against No Deal. But only by revoking (thus splitting her party for a generation) or by choosing to extend A50, but for that she needs a pretext, a new referendum or a GE (she'd go for the referendum, I think, as a GE solves nothing and risks Corbyn)
Hmm. In that light, and if you are correct, I may have to adjust my odds and make No Deal and New Vote equal favourites on 40%.
I think that's broadly right (particularly that a General Election solves nothing), although I'd put referendum odds a bit higher, as I think she probably (though not definitely) personally believes no deal would be an economic disaster history wouldn't forgive her for.
Mr. Code, that's an interesting stat, the single market adding to 'European' GDP by 1.9% (per year?) since 1990.
Hasn't Italy's economy flatlined since the eurozone came into being?
The single currency drastically helps Germany more than anyone else due to it being an exporting nation benefiting from a permanently and artificially weakened currency.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reasoning is thusly. Everyone (?) agrees that the SM+CU is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and our Remainer friends are very fond of claiming ownership of it (a bit like Labour and the NHS). However That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mean we'll be performing less well than our European neighbours. I remember that being a big deal in the seventies. Do you really want to feel like a poor relation when you are in Paris or Berlin? And remember that comes on top of the big chunk of wealth anyone with a positive bank balance lost when the pound fell. It still sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Only if you work on the basis that the SM adds 1.9% to your economy every year, that calculation would have us in recession for most of the last thirty years without it.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If, say, a majority of the people voted to kill every child under the age of 10 with an "E" in their name or, to be a touch less controversial, in favour of capital punishment, would such a vote be respected and enacted?
No.
Such questions would never be put to the people.
The biggest lesson of the referendum should be that politicians shouldn't ask a question if they don't like at least one of the answers.
Or where one of the answers is unclear. Which Leave was - as there appear to be as many different versions of Leave as there are Leavers.
But my point remains: for years there appeared to a majority in favour of capital punishment. We still did not enact it. So a democracy is more than simply a majority wanting something.
US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is leaving his post at the end of the year, President Donald Trump says, in the latest high profile departure from his administration.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
1.9% over one year is better than (say) Italy or France achieves. I don't think even ardent Europhiles claim that much of a benefit.
No, as far as I can see it's an absolute figure. 1.7% over the period '90-'15 (sorry, the 1.9% was a typo on my part).
I should add (I'm really not sniping at the SM) that it's not just about growth qua growth. The SM lowers businesses' cost base which makes them a little more competitive, fosters intra-EU trade and so forth.
My personal view is that a lot of businesses are about to find out what NTBs mean and are going to be poorer for the discovery.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
Only if you work on the basis that the SM adds 1.9% to your economy every year, that calculation would have us in recession for most of the last thirty years without it.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
If Britain were to leave the SM+CU do you see it as inevitable that a future government would rejoin it?
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
If A50 can be revoked and delayed to hold another referendum (Heaven forfend), or just 'because', then it can be delayed to ensure that we don't run out of Mars bars and planes don't fall out of the skies - although all those things are quickly being exposed as utter garbage, surprise surprise.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
Except that without an alternative on the table they may not see the deal as winning, even though it is.
If A50 can be revoked and delayed to hold another referendum (Heaven forfend), or just 'because', then it can be delayed to ensure that we don't run out of Mars bars and planes don't fall out of the skies - although all those things are quickly being exposed as utter garbage, surprise surprise.
The UK can revoke A50 unilaterally. It can't extend A50 unilaterally.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
1.9% over one year is better than (say) Italy or France achieves. I don't think even ardent Europhiles claim that much of a benefit.
No, as far as I can see it's an absolute figure. 1.7% over the period '90-'15 (sorry, the 1.9% was a typo on my part).
I should add (I'm really not sniping at the SM) that it's not just about growth qua growth. The SM lowers businesses' cost base which makes them a little more competitive, fosters intra-EU trade and so forth.
My personal view is that a lot of businesses are about to find out what NTBs mean and are going to be poorer for the discovery.
I'm pretty sure the 1.9% is baselined against EU membership without the SM, as existed earlier. To be relevant to our discussion the calculated figure should be EU membership including SM relative to no membership. Or a Norway style SM participation versus no participation.
If A50 can be revoked and delayed to hold another referendum (Heaven forfend), or just 'because', then it can be delayed to ensure that we don't run out of Mars bars and planes don't fall out of the skies - although all those things are quickly being exposed as utter garbage, surprise surprise.
The UK can revoke A50 unilaterally. It can't extend A50 unilaterally.
It can revoke and and then do it again when it feels so inclined.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
If Britain were to leave the SM+CU do you see it as inevitable that a future government would rejoin it?
My point is that if we eliminate a Canada type deal (too uncertain, too disruptive and ultimately too unrewarding) and No Deal (unsustainable) we are left with EU membership or participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis.
If those are the options, we should discuss where we want to go. Instead we waste time chasing unobtainable outcomes.
Stuck on train in Switzerland due to gilet jaunes. If we look beyond Brexit we can see Europe is in a mess. Structural reform is clearly needed. However the idea that the USA or China don’t have problems is laughable.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
t.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
1.9% over one year is better than (say) Italy or France achieves. I don't think even ardent Europhiles claim that much of a benefit.
No, as far as I can see it's an absolute figure. 1.7% over the period '90-'15 (sorry, the 1.9% was a typo on my part).
I should add (I'm really not sniping at the SM) that it's not just about growth qua growth. The SM lowers businesses' cost base which makes them a little more competitive, fosters intra-EU trade and so forth.
My personal view is that a lot of businesses are about to find out what NTBs mean and are going to be poorer for the discovery.
I think the consensus among economists is that the UK economy is about 10% bigger than it would have been had we not joined the EU. So that's a bit more of a benefit than you originally claimed but about the same order of magnitude so doesn't undermine your point.
It is worth remembering that despite all the arguments, the economics aren't the most important point about the EU. If it was just a common market, we'd hardly care about it one way or the other. It's always been a political project to bring peace to the continent. That's the big reason to stay in it.
I'm pretty sure the 1.9% is baselined against EU membership without the SM, as existed earlier. To be relevant to our discussion the calculated figure should be EU membership including SM relative to no membership. Or a Norway style SM participation versus no participation.
The only figures readily available are forecasts from IFS, NIESR et al. The 1.7% (not 1.9%, my mistook!) was based on historical data, which are frankly not that relevant now.
I tend to use NIESR's figures, not because I think they're omniscient, but the paper came out recently (Nov '18) and actually looks at May's deal rather than more abstract proposals/fantasies i.e. nothing on Super Canada +++ with bells on.
For PB's delectation they quote (note this doesn't imply a smaller economy, more a diminuition in the rate of growth) in 2030:
The other thing I like about their report is that it is transparent about their modelling assumptions, which makes it more approachable for a layperson.
If A50 can be revoked and delayed to hold another referendum (Heaven forfend), or just 'because', then it can be delayed to ensure that we don't run out of Mars bars and planes don't fall out of the skies - although all those things are quickly being exposed as utter garbage, surprise surprise.
I still snigger at the idiots on here claiming planes couldn't fly - because some loon on channel 4 claimed it would be so.
Said loon being a highly paid news presenter who really should know better.
Completely ignoring the agreements in place and the pronouncements of international bodies to the contrary.
Same with mobile phones and a whole host of other things.
Still, far to many people have lost the ability to look at the issues objectively when they can twist the issues to suit their preferred outcome - whether they support leave or remain to be fair.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
t.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
1.9% over one year is better than (say) Italy or France achieves. I don't think even ardent Europhiles claim that much of a benefit.
.
I think the consensus among economists is that the UK economy is about 10% bigger than it would have been had we not joined the EU. So that's a bit more of a benefit than you originally claimed but about the same order of magnitude so doesn't undermine your point.
It is worth remembering that despite all the arguments, the economics aren't the most important point about the EU. If it was just a common market, we'd hardly care about it one way or the other. It's always been a political project to bring peace to the continent. That's the big reason to stay in it.
I try and be scrupulous about data, but I just don't have figures on '75-'18 to hand. Most European countries did very well in the '80s, which predates the SM ofc. 10% sounds truthy though doesn't it? 40 years of membership at ~0.3% year benefit is ~12% so it feels right.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
If Britain were to leave the SM+CU do you see it as inevitable that a future government would rejoin it?
My point is that if we eliminate a Canada type deal (too uncertain, too disruptive and ultimately too unrewarding) and No Deal (unsustainable) we are left with EU membership or participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis.
If those are the options, we should discuss where we want to go. Instead we waste time chasing unobtainable outcomes.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Uh, I am pretty sure he doesn't mean 1.9% A YEAR EVERY YEAR. That's a massive boost. The Single Market has not done that.
Go back to your maths and look at your working/
Oh.
1050 euros is not 1.9% of average EC gdp. 🙄
Um, hold on a minute. At the bottom of page 7 it says "These gains are recurring each year and growing over time.". Does that mean it was compound (i.e +1.7%pa) or over the entire period?
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Uh, I am pretty sure he doesn't mean 1.9% A YEAR EVERY YEAR. That's a massive boost. The Single Market has not done that.
Go back to your maths and look at your working/
It says 1.7% every year (page 7)
It doesn't. There are some recurring benefits, though the rubric at the bottom of the page is confusing 'These gains are recurring each year and growing over time'. That's because the first part is historical and the second is looking forward to the potential for further gains.
If A50 can be revoked and delayed to hold another referendum (Heaven forfend), or just 'because', then it can be delayed to ensure that we don't run out of Mars bars and planes don't fall out of the skies - although all those things are quickly being exposed as utter garbage, surprise surprise.
The UK can revoke A50 unilaterally. It can't extend A50 unilaterally.
It can revoke and and then do it again when it feels so inclined.
With respect it cannot. It has to be revoked by the will of Parliament and cannot just be invoked again. I would expect another referendum or a party winning a GE with it in it's manifesto would be the only routes open to invoking it again
I'm pretty sure the 1.9% is baselined against EU membership without the SM, as existed earlier. To be relevant to our discussion the calculated figure should be EU membership including SM relative to no membership. Or a Norway style SM participation versus no participation.
The only figures readily available are forecasts from IFS, NIESR et al. The 1.7% (not 1.9%, my mistook!) was based on historical data, which are frankly not that relevant now.
I tend to use NIESR's figures, not because I think they're omniscient, but the paper came out recently (Nov '18) and actually looks at May's deal rather than more abstract proposals/fantasies i.e. nothing on Super Canada +++ with bells on.
For PB's delectation they quote (note this doesn't imply a smaller economy, more a diminuition in the rate of growth) in 2030:
The other thing I like about their report is that it is transparent about their modelling assumptions, which makes it more approachable for a layperson.
I would go with those figures. However I find it hard to reconcile the small suppression over the next decade with the estimations by mostly the same people that there has been a 2% suppression already due to Brexit, in just 2 years and a we haven't even left yet. An observation.
I'm pretty sure the 1.9% is baselined against EU membership without the SM, as existed earlier. To be relevant to our discussion the calculated figure should be EU membership including SM relative to no membership. Or a Norway style SM participation versus no participation.
The only figures readily available are forecasts from IFS, NIESR et al. The 1.7% (not 1.9%, my mistook!) was based on historical data, which are frankly not that relevant now.
I tend to use NIESR's figures, not because I think they're omniscient, but the paper came out recently (Nov '18) and actually looks at May's deal rather than more abstract proposals/fantasies i.e. nothing on Super Canada +++ with bells on.
For PB's delectation they quote (note this doesn't imply a smaller economy, more a diminuition in the rate of growth) in 2030:
The other thing I like about their report is that it is transparent about their modelling assumptions, which makes it more approachable for a layperson.
I would go with those figures. However I find it hard to reconcile the small suppression over the next decade with the estimations by mostly the same people that there has been a 2% suppression already due to Brexit, in just 2 years and a we haven't even left yet. An observation.
My best guess is that any quoted figure isn't going to be linear (even though I committed the sin of dividing the total by the time elapsed). Again, it makes intuitive sense for growth to be suppressed (or even negative given the recessionary forces in play already) in the late '10s/early '20s, with recovery in the latter part of the decade.
However, the 2.1% cost came from UBS, which I'm going to take with a large pinch of salt. Not because I'm a panglossian zealot, but they seem to make some pretty large assumptions - particularly on inflation which are questionable imo. I hasten to add that there's bound to have been a cost, just would like more consensus.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
If Britain were to leave the SM+CU do you see it as inevitable that a future government would rejoin it?
My point is that if we eliminate a Canada type deal (too uncertain, too disruptive and ultimately too unrewarding) and No Deal (unsustainable) we are left with EU membership or participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis.
If those are the options, we should discuss where we want to go. Instead we waste time chasing unobtainable outcomes.
What do you even mean by unsustainable?
The barriers to trade generally and the lack (and cost) of lettuces in particular will mean the No Deal state will last weeks, not years. People may not be interested in trade policy but they can recognise a clusterfuck when they see it. It will be a brave politician who still talks about "managed WTO no deals" in that situation.
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
I think May would feel threatened by someone more competent than her in her Cabinet. I mean, look at those she actually chose when she was in a position to do so. They made her - by comparison - look good.
It is another example of why she is such a poor leader. The Tories really have made their - and the country's - position worse by keeping her as their leader. She is, at best, a competent administrator. Not a leader.
The last paragraph hits the nail on the head.
Whatever you thought about Thatcher and Blair , they could lead and change minds. Even when I disagreed with Blair , you would listen to him, and come away thinking he has a good argument.. In contrast May hardly ever answers a challenging question, or tries to convince people not on her side that she is pursuing the correct course.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Go on then, David. Invade Europe, force their surrender, make them give us a better treaty. In 104 days. Operation Certain Death, here we come...
In the realms of impossible hypotheticals, but what really would be the UKs chances in a military attack on continental Europe??
We could nuke it. But I don't think we could invade and occupy. We don't have enough people, planes, tanks, shells, boats, anything and everything.
As of 2018, the British Army comprises just over 81,500 trained regular (full-time) personnel and just over 27,000 trained reserve (part-time) personnel.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy.
Everything is on Youtube these days, including Binkov's Battlegrounds analysing hypothetical wars based on military capability. Ignore the silly puppet. The verdict is that we could not defend Gibraltar from Spain, for instance. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPdk3JuQGxOCMlZLLt4drhw
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Uh, I am pretty sure he doesn't mean 1.9% A YEAR EVERY YEAR. That's a massive boost. The Single Market has not done that.
Go back to your maths and look at your working/
It says 1.7% every year (page 7)
It doesn't. There are some recurring benefits, though the rubric at the bottom of the page is confusing 'These gains are recurring each year and growing over time'. That's because the first part is historical and the second is looking forward to the potential for further gains.
Seriously, read the report, don't skim read it .
Wishing I hadn't posted the link now .
I'm trying to read on a phone, here - I think I'll wait 'til I'm on my laptop.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
“Leave means Leave and bugger the costs” types seem permanently cheated and furious. If it wasn’t Brexit their attention would have turned to crime, coloureds or things not being as good as they used to be. I presume the statins help control their blood pressure.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
So what?
Well Remainers want an EUref2 without a No Deal option but be prepared for the backlash from Leavers if Remain wins without what is considered a 'true Brexit' option by many if not most Leavers
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
All the negotiation about the real trade off has been deferred. I don't know how you can be so sure you're happy with the outcome.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
“Leave means Leave and bugger the costs” types seem permanently cheated and furious. If it wasn’t Brexit their attention would have turned to crime, coloureds or things not being as good as they used to be. I presume the statins help control their blood pressure.
Statins are not used to control blood pressure. Cholesterol levels, which don’t affect tempers.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
Thank you to whoever posted the Ivan Rogers piece earlier. A long read but well worth it. I felt genuinely educated on certain points. It is in a different league to most things I have read on Brexit. What a shame that when it comes to dialogue with the general public on this subject everything has to be dumbed down and hence misrepresented in order for it to penetrate. Explore the multi-faceted issues properly and fail to communicate or opt for simplistic nonsense and communicate that all too well. Such would appear to be the choice facing the modern politician when confronted with the horror of a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. Thank goodness there will not be another one any time soon.
Whatever you thought about Thatcher and Blair , they could lead and change minds. Even when I disagreed with Blair , you would listen to him, and come away thinking he has a good argument.. In contrast May hardly ever answers a challenging question, or tries to convince people not on her side that she is pursuing the correct course.
Exactly. May (and Corbyn) hide any from questioning whenever possible and if she is forced to defend her position simply recites stock phrases which amount to nothing more than "this is a good deal because I say so and it's in the national interest."
As a strategy for selling a deeply controversial policy about which at least 48% of the country are dubious this is hopeless.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If, say, a majority of the people voted to kill every child under the age of 10 with an "E" in their name or, to be a touch less controversial, in favour of capital punishment, would such a vote be respected and enacted?
No.
Such questions would never be put to the people.
The biggest lesson of the referendum should be that politicians shouldn't ask a question if they don't like at least one of the answers.
Actually I think the condition should be that politicians think BOTH answers are viable. The Swiss vote on things like the appeal of alternative designs of bridge or whether the central streets should be made pedestrian-only, both issues where one can implement either decision without too much grief. If politicians privately think one alternative is a bad mistake but they feel sure that the sensible public will choose the other one, then we end up where we are now.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
All the negotiation about the real trade off has been deferred. I don't know how you can be so sure you're happy with the outcome.
The word 'deal' tends to mislead. It's the end of the beginning.
It's definitely the wrong choice for people who are 'bored of Brexit'.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
All the negotiation about the real trade off has been deferred. I don't know how you can be so sure you're happy with the outcome.
The political declaration on the future relationship is very positive and the fuss about the WA is a fuss about nothing.
Mr. Royale, even if you believe both aspects of that, it still creates an opportunity for every one of the 27 to gouge a price from the UK. Every one has a veto.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If, say, a majority of the people voted to kill every child under the age of 10 with an "E" in their name or, to be a touch less controversial, in favour of capital punishment, would such a vote be respected and enacted?
No.
Such questions would never be put to the people.
The biggest lesson of the referendum should be that politicians shouldn't ask a question if they don't like at least one of the answers.
Actually I think the condition should be that politicians think BOTH answers are viable.
Yes, that's what I meant, but perhaps the double negatives confused it...
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
Or just differing priorities.
Indeed. Which is why it’s so important to tread softly and delicately right now when Brexit is so divisive.
Else the whole thing will blow up in our faces, and we’ll Remain in a federal Europe.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
A bird in the hand...
What if they do win again? What do they expect? Surely they realise that the quality of Brexit depends on who is negotiating it, not on the public mandate. So after the palaver of a new vote, if Leave wins, that will make no difference to the agreement or the deal.
And there is of course the huge risk that the vote will go the other way. The last thing any Brexiter should be doing is encouraging a second vote.
Mr. Royale, even if you believe both aspects of that, it still creates an opportunity for every one of the 27 to gouge a price from the UK. Every one has a veto.
Oh yes, that’s negotiating - it’s a give and take - nevertheless I have little doubt a fair deal would be done. They always are.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For mevote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
The EU wants the Withdrawal Agreement and it isn't going to draw attention to inconvenient facts, any more than Theresa May will. It also doesn't care about internal issues in third countries. We have to work this stuff out ourselves. The EU won't save us from the consequences of our decisions.
Edit. To be clear the backstop will be set by treaty and is permanent.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
“Leave means Leave and bugger the costs” types seem permanently cheated and furious. If it wasn’t Brexit their attention would have turned to crime, coloureds or things not being as good as they used to be. I presume the statins help control their blood pressure.
Statins are not used to control blood pressure. Cholesterol levels, which don’t affect tempers.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
So what?
Well Remainers want an EUref2 without a No Deal option but be prepared for the backlash from Leavers if Remain wins without what is considered a 'true Brexit' option by many if not most Leavers
You overestimate the salience of Brexit. Most people don’t give a chuff.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Go on then, David. Invade Europe, force their surrender, make them give us a better treaty. In 104 days. Operation Certain Death, here we come...
In the realms of impossible hypotheticals, but what really would be the UKs chances in a military attack on continental Europe??
We could nuke it. But I don't think we could invade and occupy. We don't have enough people, planes, tanks, shells, boats, anything and everything.
As of 2018, the British Army comprises just over 81,500 trained regular (full-time) personnel and just over 27,000 trained reserve (part-time) personnel.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy.
Everything is on Youtube these days, including Binkov's Battlegrounds analysing hypothetical wars based on military capability. Ignore the silly puppet. The verdict is that we could not defend Gibraltar from Spain, for instance. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPdk3JuQGxOCMlZLLt4drhw
Hadn't seen those before - as a big fan of "what ifs"- thanks
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
So what?
Well Remainers want an EUref2 without a No Deal option but be prepared for the backlash from Leavers if Remain wins without what is considered a 'true Brexit' option by many if not most Leavers
You overestimate the salience of Brexit. Most people don’t give a chuff.
Especially now. Making it all disappear would be very popular.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That referendum could go either way, Yougov had it Remain 50% May Deal 50% a fortnight ago.
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
So what?
Well Remainers want an EUref2 without a No Deal option but be prepared for the backlash from Leavers if Remain wins without what is considered a 'true Brexit' option by many if not most Leavers
You overestimate the salience of Brexit. Most people don’t give a chuff.
Especially now. Making it all disappear would be very popular.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I ignore the political Punch and Judy. It’s just that.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I ignore the political Punch and Judy. It’s just that.
It costs the EU nothing to affirm what should be a clear legal position, namely that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement can't be permanent.
That they deliberately chose not to do so indicates they're going to try to find some way round that.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I ignore the political Punch and Judy. It’s just that.
It costs the EU nothing to affirm what should be a clear legal position, namely that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement can't be permanent.
That they deliberately chose not to do so indicates they're going to try to find some way round that.
The whole point of the backstop is that it is permanent. That's why it's in the draft treaty.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reaot mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mtill sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
1.9% over one year is nice but not stellar. 1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Uh, I am pretty sure he doesn't mean 1.9% A YEAR EVERY YEAR. That's a massive boost. The Single Market has not done that.
Go back to your maths and look at your working/
It says 1.7% every year (page 7)
No it doesn't. It says an increase of 1.7% in GDP overall since 1990. This is confirmed by the graphic at the bottom of page 40. It further confirms this by saying that there has been an overall increase in GDP per capita of 1% since 1995 due to integration in the Single Market. Of course any growth per capita is good but it is tiny compared to the sorts of growth rates we are used to reporting.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I ignore the political Punch and Judy. It’s just that.
It costs the EU nothing to affirm what should be a clear legal position, namely that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement can't be permanent.
That they deliberately chose not to do so indicates they're going to try to find some way round that.
The whole point of the backstop is that it is permanent. That's why it's in the draft treaty.
But Article 50 says the Withdrawal Agreement should not contain permanent future arrangements.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
For me "Vassal State" is shorthand for committing now to implement rules in the future that we will have had no say in drafting. This covers SM+CU. Some people might argue it includes EU membership as we are also bound by future rules. The difference is that we have been through a collective decision-making process where we have significant influence. It will make a big difference in practice because without a vote in the SM, no-one will pay much attention to our interests.
TMay's deal won't pass. Leavers know that Remaining is better than that.
If Leavers can't force No Deal or decide on an alternative, I reckon they will reluctantly accept a new vote (with the reasonable expectation that they might win again).
No they don’t. I think Theresa May’s Deal is much better than Remaining and I’m astonished that so many Leavers think differently.
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
The permanent nature of the "backstop" is a deep worry for the implications for the next stage of negotiations.
It isn’t permanent and both sides have a strong interest in superseding it with a proper FTA.
I was starting to believe that - until this week's EUCO.
I ignore the political Punch and Judy. It’s just that.
It costs the EU nothing to affirm what should be a clear legal position, namely that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement can't be permanent.
That they deliberately chose not to do so indicates they're going to try to find some way round that.
The whole point of the backstop is that it is permanent. That's why it's in the draft treaty.
But Article 50 says the Withdrawal Agreement should not contain permanent future arrangements.
It neither requires a backstop nor prevents one:
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. "
‘...throughout the last couple of years there has periodically been the crunching sound of this or that Brexit fantasy encountering the lethal force of reality.’
Thank you to whoever posted the Ivan Rogers piece earlier. A long read but well worth it. I felt genuinely educated on certain points. It is in a different league to most things I have read on Brexit. What a shame that when it comes to dialogue with the general public on this subject everything has to be dumbed down and hence misrepresented in order for it to penetrate. Explore the multi-faceted issues properly and fail to communicate or opt for simplistic nonsense and communicate that all too well. Such would appear to be the choice facing the modern politician when confronted with the horror of a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. Thank goodness there will not be another one any time soon.
Agree with this, a very informative read but needs a long attention span.
One recurring theme in this discussion is how angry Leavers will be if thwarted. But they seem angry all the time. Will leaving the EU make them happy? If not, why pander to them?
Comments
My guess is almost none to both.
1.9% over twenty-five years adds 60% to your economy.
Hasn't Italy's economy flatlined since the eurozone came into being?
The single currency drastically helps Germany more than anyone else due to it being an exporting nation benefiting from a permanently and artificially weakened currency.
But my point remains: for years there appeared to a majority in favour of capital punishment. We still did not enact it. So a democracy is more than simply a majority wanting something.
US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is leaving his post at the end of the year, President Donald Trump says, in the latest high profile departure from his administration.
No, as far as I can see it's an absolute figure. 1.7% over the period '90-'15 (sorry, the 1.9% was a typo on my part).
I should add (I'm really not sniping at the SM) that it's not just about growth qua growth. The SM lowers businesses' cost base which makes them a little more competitive, fosters intra-EU trade and so forth.
My personal view is that a lot of businesses are about to find out what NTBs mean and are going to be poorer for the discovery.
Yeah.
That was it.
[looks around furtively. Runs to the exit]
Surprisingly, the UK is ranked #28 and #27 in terms of it's integration into the SM for goods and services.
If those are the options, we should discuss where we want to go. Instead we waste time chasing unobtainable outcomes.
It is worth remembering that despite all the arguments, the economics aren't the most important point about the EU. If it was just a common market, we'd hardly care about it one way or the other. It's always been a political project to bring peace to the continent. That's the big reason to stay in it.
I tend to use NIESR's figures, not because I think they're omniscient, but the paper came out recently (Nov '18) and actually looks at May's deal rather than more abstract proposals/fantasies i.e. nothing on Super Canada +++ with bells on.
For PB's delectation they quote (note this doesn't imply a smaller economy, more a diminuition in the rate of growth) in 2030:
May's deal: -3.9%
May's deal + backstop -2.8%
Orderly no deal -5.5%
The other thing I like about their report is that it is transparent about their modelling assumptions, which makes it more approachable for a layperson.
Said loon being a highly paid news presenter who really should know better.
Completely ignoring the agreements in place and the pronouncements of international bodies to the contrary.
Same with mobile phones and a whole host of other things.
Still, far to many people have lost the ability to look at the issues objectively when they can twist the issues to suit their preferred outcome - whether they support leave or remain to be fair.
Seriously, read the report, don't skim read it
Wishing I hadn't posted the link now
However, the 2.1% cost came from UBS, which I'm going to take with a large pinch of salt. Not because I'm a panglossian zealot, but they seem to make some pretty large assumptions - particularly on inflation which are questionable imo. I hasten to add that there's bound to have been a cost, just would like more consensus.
Here's something you might like.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/2018 IfG Brexit impact [final for web].pdf
Whatever you thought about Thatcher and Blair , they could lead and change minds.
Even when I disagreed with Blair , you would listen to him, and come away thinking he has a good argument..
In contrast May hardly ever answers a challenging question, or tries to convince people not on her side that she is pursuing the correct course.
https://front.moveon.org/2020-straw-poll/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPdk3JuQGxOCMlZLLt4drhw
However if Remain did win without a No Deal option 'Leave means Leavers' would feel cheated and furious and we could see an SNP 2015 style backlash for a new Farage led party, unless Boris leads the Tories by then of course
Other than sheer ignorance of what the Deal says.
As a strategy for selling a deeply controversial policy about which at least 48% of the country are dubious this is hopeless.
It's definitely the wrong choice for people who are 'bored of Brexit'.
Indeed. Which is why it’s so important to tread softly and delicately right now when Brexit is so divisive.
Else the whole thing will blow up in our faces, and we’ll Remain in a federal Europe.
What if they do win again? What do they expect? Surely they realise that the quality of Brexit depends on who is negotiating it, not on the public mandate. So after the palaver of a new vote, if Leave wins, that will make no difference to the agreement or the deal.
And there is of course the huge risk that the vote will go the other way. The last thing any Brexiter should be doing is encouraging a second vote.
Edit. To be clear the backstop will be set by treaty and is permanent.
That they deliberately chose not to do so indicates they're going to try to find some way round that.
"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. "
‘...throughout the last couple of years there has periodically been the crunching sound of this or that Brexit fantasy encountering the lethal force of reality.’
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1073972477355794432?s=21