I have heard that 1/3 of all births in europe are in the UK now, because of immigration - it can't be true, can it? Because if it any like true the royal college is mad.
Does anyone know whether there are any plans for an exit poll on referendum night? There wasn't for the Scottish independence referendum which arguably made it more exciting since we had to wait for the real results to get an idea of what was going on.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
Hmmmm... Can't say I'm best pleased with Vote Leave's goal.
Nor am I.
And implying that you want the whole thing to collapse is pretty stupid too. Just because an organization may not work for us does not mean that it isn't fine for others. Saying or implying such a thing is not going to make post-exit relationships any easier.
Leave is staking everything on immigration. It's the best chance to win. The package as a whole looks very poorly thought-through and will cause significant harm to the City. It basically makes all Remain's direst economic and financial warnings credible. Essentially the Leave side has thrown a Hail Mary.
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
I was - and remain - pretty critical of Cameron's negotiations, particularly as they affect the financial services sector but that's nothing compared to this. Without the single passport it will be very difficult for that sector. Talking about "ingenuity" is not enough. It will mean a very significant hit to a significant sector of our economy. That has implications for tax revenue and much else besides.
Now you might still argue that it is worth it because of all the other advantages but Leave are essentially conceding that there will be a great deal of economic pain.
They may have made a coherent case - but it reads to me (at first glance) like a coherent case that might win a legal argument or a debating competition or an essay prize at university rather than a case that makes sense to voters. Try saying to people: well you may lose your job or it might migrate to another country inside the EU (and a lot of back office jobs are already going to low-cost locations, such as Poland) but it's all right because we can stop immigrants coming in. Those people might just reply that all that's been achieved is creating the conditions in which English people will have to turn into emigrants to other countries.
Mock the midwives all you like - but if today was midwives warning about pragmatics, versus abstract ideological concepts like democratic liberation from Michael Gove, REMAIN won
Not mocking midwives, mocking those that run royal college who came out with the most pathetic reasoning for supporting EU. Lots of good reasons to stay in, theirs were laughable.
Has a single Trades Union or business organisation come out for LEAVE ? Even the "neutral" NFU more or less said they prefer to REMAIN.
Why would large trade unions or business organisations that can lobby ministers and commissioners at the highest levels at the moment, helping creating barriers to entry for their competitors, have any interest in changing the status quo?
I used to work for the Big 4. I heard these self-serving justifications all the time.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
I don't think that we tried consistently. It's always been half-hearted.
An article on CapX about the Leave position that will not be particularly well-received by many posters. The url is actually kinder to the Leave position than the article itself:
Mock the midwives all you like - but if today was midwives warning about pragmatics, versus abstract ideological concepts like democratic liberation from Michael Gove, REMAIN won
Not mocking midwives, mocking those that run royal college who came out with the most pathetic reasoning for supporting EU. Lots of good reasons to stay in, theirs were laughable.
Has a single Trades Union or business organisation come out for LEAVE ? Even the "neutral" NFU more or less said they prefer to REMAIN.
Mock the midwives all you like - but if today was midwives warning about pragmatics, versus abstract ideological concepts like democratic liberation from Michael Gove, REMAIN won
Not mocking midwives, mocking those that run royal college who came out with the most pathetic reasoning for supporting EU. Lots of good reasons to stay in, theirs were laughable.
Has a single Trades Union or business organisation come out for LEAVE ? Even the "neutral" NFU more or less said they prefer to REMAIN.
Farmers have a massive vested interest in staying in.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
Yep, we will. Of course, when we have made serious efforts we've won various opt outs and even special rebates.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
But Leave will never win over those who lack confidence in this country to succeed by itself.
It's the floaters who may opt to Remain in the EU out of despair that Leave should focus on.
That is one segment, there are other segments. It will take a coalition of segments to win this.
Hmmmm... Can't say I'm best pleased with Vote Leave's goal.
Nor am I.
And implying that you want the whole thing to collapse is pretty stupid too. Just because an organization may not work for us does not mean that it isn't fine for others. Saying or implying such a thing is not going to make post-exit relationships any easier.
Leave is staking everything on immigration. It's the best chance to win. The package as a whole looks very poorly thought-through and will cause significant harm to the City. It basically makes all Remain's direst economic and financial warnings credible. Essentially the Leave side has thrown a Hail Mary.
Vote LEAVE has not really started to use the immigration fact. Osborne put it into play with the 3 million more forecast from REMAINing.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree. "Liberation" has a very different meaning to people on the Continent. It implies liberation from a tyrannical oppressor. Whatever the faults of the EU (and I can list plenty) implying that our departure would be similar to the liberation of countries from the yoke of Nazi or Soviet tyranny is pretty daft, to put it mildly.
One of the best things the EU has done is to provide a shelter and a guide and a model and a helping hand to those countries which did move towards liberation and democracy, from Spain and Portugal to the Eastern European countries.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Hmmmm... Can't say I'm best pleased with Vote Leave's goal.
Nor am I.
And implying that you want the whole thing to collapse is pretty stupid too. Just because an organization may not work for us does not mean that it isn't fine for others. Saying or implying such a thing is not going to make post-exit relationships any easier.
Leave is staking everything on immigration. It's the best chance to win. The package as a whole looks very poorly thought-through and will cause significant harm to the City. It basically makes all Remain's direst economic and financial warnings credible. Essentially the Leave side has thrown a Hail Mary.
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
I was - and remain - pretty critical of Cameron's negotiations, particularly as they affect the financial services sector but that's nothing compared to this. Without the single passport it will be very difficult for that sector. Talking about "ingenuity" is not enough. It will mean a very significant hit to a significant sector of our economy. That has implications for tax revenue and much else besides.
Now you might still argue that it is worth it because of all the other advantages but Leave are essentially conceding that there will be a great deal of economic pain.
They may have made a coherent case - but it reads to me (at first glance) like a coherent case that might win a legal argument or a debating competition or an essay prize at university rather than a case that makes sense to voters. Try saying to people: well you may lose your job or it might migrate to another country inside the EU (and a lot of back office jobs are already going to low-cost locations, such as Poland) but it's all right because we can stop immigrants coming in. Those people might just reply that all that's been achieved is creating the conditions in which English people will have to turn into emigrants to other countries.
Yep, they've conceded the economic argument to Remain. It's a brave move, but immigration is by far Leave's strongest selling point. I am not sure what Biris's mates in the City will think.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
Yep, we will. Of course, when we have made serious efforts we've won various opt outs and even special rebates.
Indeed, our engagement so far has been primarily negative. If Remain win that will have to change.
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
Yep, we will. Of course, when we have made serious efforts we've won various opt outs and even special rebates.
The "anyone but Juncker move" by Cameron was serious and a massive flop.
Hmmmm... Can't say I'm best pleased with Vote Leave's goal.
Nor am I.
And implying that you want the whole thing to collapse is pretty stupid too. Just because an organization may not work for us does not mean that it isn't fine for others. Saying or implying such a thing is not going to make post-exit relationships any easier.
Leave is staking everything on immigration. It's the best chance to win. The package as a whole looks very poorly thought-through and will cause significant harm to the City. It basically makes all Remain's direst economic and financial warnings credible. Essentially the Leave side has thrown a Hail Mary.
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
I was - and remain - pretty critical of Cameron's negotiations, particularly as they affect the financial services sector but that's nothing compared to this. Without the single passport it will be very difficult for that sector. Talking about "ingenuity" is not enough. It will mean a very significant hit to a significant sector of our economy. That has implications for tax revenue and much else besides.
Now you might still argue that it is worth it because of all the other advantages but Leave are essentially conceding that there will be a great deal of economic pain.
They may have made a coherent case - but it reads to me (at first glance) like a coherent case that might win a legal argument or a debating competition or an essay prize at university rather than a case that makes sense to voters. Try saying to people: well you may lose your job or it might migrate to another country inside the EU (and a lot of back office jobs are already going to low-cost locations, such as Poland) but it's all right because we can stop immigrants coming in. Those people might just reply that all that's been achieved is creating the conditions in which English people will have to turn into emigrants to other countries.
Yep, they've conceded the economic argument to Remain. It's a brave move, but immigration is by far Leave's strongest selling point. I am not sure what Biris's mates in the City will think.
Economic failure is a sure fire way to stop immigration.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
Yes we really have. Since it is so often misatributed I have no idea who actually said it but the old aphorism seems perfect in summing up the Remain position.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
-------------------------------
Cyclefree - I'm copying below what I sent to DavidL earlier on, re. this issue. It revolves around the issue of the importance of passporting for financial services exports. The PWC study linked suggests the effects of Brexit are not likely to be very big on financial services exports, even with various 'add-ons' they have thought of. I'd be interested in why you (apparently) think their view is so wrong.
[to DavidL - re passporting]
UK financial services exports to the EU most certainly did not start in 1999 or 2000 and indeed were quite significant before that. So how great is the downside risk, really?
Similarly, the big US (and many European) banks came here before the passporting regime as well. I know they say they like it, but that clearly wasn't the original motivation in arriving.
I enclose FYI a report I have seen by PWC which produces rather small estimates of the long-term impact of Brexit on UK financial services GDP, which are moreover somewhat bulked out by questionable assumptions re, immigration and 'uncertainty'. The impacts are of the scale 2-4% by 2030 (depending on the post-Brexit trade regime) of which trade effects only are 0.6-2%. These translate into really small effects on broader UK GDP.
They go on to caveat these results with some hand waving about relocation risks but without anything to back it up really (given who the client was, I imagine there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on the drafting based on 'why can't we make the numbers bigger/stress more downside risks' etc.)
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
We haven't put in effort. The FCO adopted the attitude 50 years ago that their task was to manage the decline of the UK. And many in government are loathe to rock the boat and spoil relations with Brussels, since it's considered to be part of the career path.
This is what's so irritating about the Referendum question. We should really be asked to 'Leave' or 'Commit to going in properly'. And if the latter wins, do it. The half baked situation we're in now will never work.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
Yep, we will. Of course, when we have made serious efforts we've won various opt outs and even special rebates.
So not actually changed anything then. Just got a few bribes to shut us up.
An article on CapX about the Leave position that will not be particularly well-received by many posters. The url is actually kinder to the Leave position than the article itself:
Gove's antics today were just...awful. I mean Osborne was average yesterday, but compared to Gove he was Gladstone. This is from someone who really is avoiding all the nonsense in the press and has no real solid convictions either way, but who has decided which way he shall vote.
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
Exactly. Knocking the rebate off is perfectly valid & does reduce the figure that leave uses, but you can't then start knocking off stuff like European uni grants which are competitive process.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
But Gove's argument today was if you stop paying, the council will empty your bins anuway
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
Nothing new there.
The problem was ch4 were spinning this as a "fact check". It is no more a fact than the incorrect figure leave use.
Mock the midwives all you like - but if today was midwives warning about pragmatics, versus abstract ideological concepts like democratic liberation from Michael Gove, REMAIN won
Not mocking midwives, mocking those that run royal college who came out with the most pathetic reasoning for supporting EU. Lots of good reasons to stay in, theirs were laughable.
Has a single Trades Union or business organisation come out for LEAVE ? Even the "neutral" NFU more or less said they prefer to REMAIN.
The RMT.
Great. One of the most left wing Union is for LEAVE. That should please the Tory rightwingers and the kippers.
Ch4 just run a fact check that was incredibly disingenuous. They bust the incorrect figure that the EU costs £350m a week by pointing out rebate (fine) then they totted up all the grants etc that Companies etc get to reduce that figure right down...if we use that logic basically the eu only "costs" UK & german citizens to be members, all other countries have free or get paid to be members.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
An even better example would be saying how much income tax do you pay & then subtracting the cost of your kids education at a state school, all the costs with going to the gp / hospital etc etc etc..as each year those "benefits" are different but the same,amount of tax is paid on the same pay.
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
The Royal College of Midwives have warned today that care for women giving birth could be at risk if we vote to Leave the EU.
Not a joke.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
I don't think that we tried consistently. It's always been half-hearted.
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree. "Liberation" has a very different meaning to people on the Continent. It implies liberation from a tyrannical oppressor. Whatever the faults of the EU (and I can list plenty) implying that our departure would be similar to the liberation of countries from the yoke of Nazi or Soviet tyranny is pretty daft, to put it mildly.
One of the best things the EU has done is to provide a shelter and a guide and a model and a helping hand to those countries which did move towards liberation and democracy, from Spain and Portugal to the Eastern European countries.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Cyclefree - I'm copying below what I sent to DavidL earlier on, re. this issue. It revolves around the issue of the importance of passporting for financial services exports. The PWC study linked suggests the effects of Brexit are not likely to be very big on financial services exports, even with various 'add-ons' they have thought of. I'd be interested in why you (apparently) think their view is so wrong.
Thanks. It needs a more considered reply than I have time for now. But briefly:-
1. Banks are finding conditions very tough. They are all cutting costs and moving staff and services to cheaper locations. There is a lot of uncertainty around the markets, the cost of regulatory capital etc. So banks are getting out of businesses which are not profitable. A good thing. But it has an economic cost. Add to this such a big change i.e. the whole basis on which they can do business in the Europe region has changed and this is adding a whole new level of uncertainty, far greater than the uncertainty of having access to the single market but on different terms. This is saying no access at all. That is a biggie. And it will have big consequences. 2. The cost of capital is high so you want to have as few entities requiring regulatory capital as possible and put them in the locations which will have the most advantages for you: access to markets, costs, expertise etc. 3. London has many advantages but it is also expensive. Being outside the EU without the passport will cause very significant disruption. Banks will consider whether London should be their main place of business for the EMEA region. If they have to have a place within the EU as well as in the UK that will cause issues for the UK. And other countries will be keen to capture as much of that business as they can.
I'm not saying that an industry will be destroyed overnight. I think the City could live with access to the single market on EEA terms. But no access at all. Hmm..... I don't think that Gove - based on what I have seen of the speech - has really thought through what it will mean, not just for this sector but all the sectors dependant on it.
Clearly the City is not the only factor to be taken into account. But it is important to those working in it or dependant on it. And it is to those dependant on the tax revenues.
It's certainly a bold call. And clear. It will attract some. It will put off others. That was always going to be the case with the Leave campaign.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree. "Liberation" has a very different meaning to people on the Continent. It implies liberation from a tyrannical oppressor. Whatever the faults of the EU (and I can list plenty) implying that our departure would be similar to the liberation of countries from the yoke of Nazi or Soviet tyranny is pretty daft, to put it mildly.
One of the best things the EU has done is to provide a shelter and a guide and a model and a helping hand to those countries which did move towards liberation and democracy, from Spain and Portugal to the Eastern European countries.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Listening to R4 this morning an MEP in Catania was claiming Italy is now as Eurosceptic as the UK. And he wasn't even from the usual suspects.
I know I saw it. Their reasons were utter bollocks. Basically all mothers would lose their rights & everything would be more dangerous.
"Too feeble to survive without the EU. Too weak to stand up for women's rights and hygiene. Outside, everyone will be choking on car exhausts, and bashing gays up"
Pathetic isn't it.
Isn't pathetic believing we are so insignificant and so irrelevant that we are incapable of influencing small European countries to help shape the EU's future?
Yes because we have been so successful at that over the last 30 years.
We haven't really tried.
If you think we haven't really tried to influence the development of the EEC/EC/EU from the inside over the last 40 years then I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree.
I don't think that we tried consistently. It's always been half-hearted.
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
And so we'll continue to get crap deals and have limited influence, and everyone will whinge about it.
Doing it properly also means sending in some decent politicians who'll fight our corner. Not the Ex Westminster deadbeats looking to enrich themselves at the trough, or the half wits from UKIP that can't be arsed to vote.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
But Gove's argument today was if you stop paying, the council will empty your bins anuway
Nope. Gove's argument was if you stop paying the extortionate costs being charged by the council you can pay someone else to do it and they will do a better job as well. And you will have money left over.
Michael Gove and George Osborne are friends and you do have to wonder if Michael Gove has just gifted the referendum to him. I assume his plan to turn down the single market and disregard the City is now leave's official stance and that leave have decided they have lost the economic argument so they are going big time on sovereignty and immigration. The problem over the coming weeks will be that the restriction of free movement will not be an option available to leave. It will be interesting how Germany and France respond when they receive the inevitable questions from the international press. As I stated this morning before Michael's speech that I am now remain and today has only made me more certain that the Country has no option to vote to remain, and then work within the EU for change.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
But Gove's argument today was if you stop paying, the council will empty your bins anuway
I didn't see Gove's speech today as was learning the intricacies of sequencing tarmac deliveries. Was he seriously arguing that if we leave the EU they will still pay farm subsidies for example? Bloody madness if he did.
Off topic, but doing wikipediaing the other day, came across a small italian political party, the Conservatives and Reformists, whose page states 'CR, emerged in May 2015 from a split from Forza Italia (FI), is modelled on the British Conservative Party and David Cameron's brand of liberal conservatism, vision and leadership (in the run-up of the 2015 UK general election Fitto, Capezzone and other 28 MPs of their faction within FI had publicly endorsed Cameron in a letter to The Telegraph);
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
Fundamentally that is the problem. It doesn't take much for the leaders of the bureaucracy and those who endorse it to become pretty contemptuous and dismissive of those who suggest reform, so their commitment to every doing any serious reform is questionable at best; they just don't think it is necessary, unless it is reform in the direction of more integration.
The public by and large, and I include me, might be able to be sold on staying in if we halt things as we are (even if many would like some reversal), and it will come down to how many think we have achieved that, but I think there's no chance of that.
Hmmmm... Can't say I'm best pleased with Vote Leave's goal.
Nor am I.
Leave
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
I was - and remain - pretty critical of Cameron's negotiations, particularly as they affect the financial services sector but that's nothing compared to this. Without the single passport it will be very difficult for that sector. Talking about "ingenuity" is not enough. It will mean a very significant hit to a significant sector of our economy. That has implications for tax revenue and much else besides.
Now you might still argue that it is worth it because of all the other advantages but Leave are essentially conceding that there will be a great deal of economic pain.
They may have made a coherent case - but it reads to me (at first glance) like a coherent case that might win a legal argument or a debating competition or an essay prize at university rather than a case that makes sense to voters. Try saying to people: well you may lose your job or it might migrate to another country inside the EU (and a lot of back office jobs are already going to low-cost locations, such as Poland) but it's all right because we can stop immigrants coming in. Those people might just reply that all that's been achieved is creating the conditions in which English people will have to turn into emigrants to other countries.
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Listening to R4 this morning an MEP in Catania was claiming Italy is now as Eurosceptic as the UK. And he wasn't even from the usual suspects.
Yes I heard that. Italians, particularly in Sicily, want the migration from Africa dealt with. They feel abandoned by the EU because it dealt with the Greek/Turkey border issue and they're now getting the migrants. They want a similar deal. They want the EU to deal with the issue. They are not Eurosceptic in the same way that Britain is.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Ok, so perhaps the word "liberation" wasn't the best one to use but I think the issue of a democratic deficit inside the EU is very real.
My wife is Bulgarian by the way. Bulgarians see the EU as less corrupt than their country and need the development funding so, therefore, see a net benefit in development to it.
By they are still just as annoyed by its edicts and diktats as we are.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainlut the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
I have seen nothing to date saying Gove has made any comment on desdiring the break up of the EU except here on PB. Even the source data - Laura Kuensberg -doesn't attribute it to Gove but to "Leave". I'm putting that down to an overhyped up kipper myself as I suspect wiser heads will say it's a a daft thing to say and a gift to opposition spin doctors.
In reality if the UK PM can't move much in the EU quite how a bloke make an unguarded comment to a journo can lies beyond me. The EU will stay as a poltical block as that;s the realpolitik of those who want to stay in it.
Off topic, but doing wikipediaing the other day, came across a small italian political party, the Conservatives and Reformists, whose page states 'CR, emerged in May 2015 from a split from Forza Italia (FI), is modelled on the British Conservative Party and David Cameron's brand of liberal conservatism, vision and leadership (in the run-up of the 2015 UK general election Fitto, Capezzone and other 28 MPs of their faction within FI had publicly endorsed Cameron in a letter to The Telegraph);
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
But Gove's argument today was if you stop paying, the council will empty your bins anuway
I didn't see Gove's speech today as was learning the intricacies of sequencing tarmac deliveries. Was he seriously arguing that if we leave the EU they will still pay farm subsidies for example? Bloody madness if he did.
No he wasn't. Not in any way at all. You should know better than to believe anything Scott posts on here.
Off topic, but doing wikipediaing the other day, came across a small italian political party, the Conservatives and Reformists, whose page states 'CR, emerged in May 2015 from a split from Forza Italia (FI), is modelled on the British Conservative Party and David Cameron's brand of liberal conservatism, vision and leadership (in the run-up of the 2015 UK general election Fitto, Capezzone and other 28 MPs of their faction within FI had publicly endorsed Cameron in a letter to The Telegraph);
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
Fundamentally that is the problem. It doesn't take much for the leaders of the bureaucracy and those who endorse it to become pretty contemptuous and dismissive of those who suggest reform, so their commitment to every doing any serious reform is questionable at best; they just don't think it is necessary, unless it is reform in the direction of more integration.
The public by and large, and I include me, might be able to be sold on staying in if we halt things as we are (even if many would like some reversal), and it will come down to how many think we have achieved that, but I think there's no chance of that.
@kle4 - on your first point, that move by Cameron was very, very heavily criticised on here at the time (remember Tim with his Latvian SS and homophobes nonsense?) and all sorts of criticism levelled at him by European leaders and the EPP that he'd lose influence outside the club. He also suffered several resignations and retirements from Tory europhiles.
So he actually did it unilaterally, and quite quickly, a bit like an internal Brexit.
Someone has posted a tweet saying that Annabel Goldie actually had a higher approval rating in 2011 that Ruth Davidson has now. I havent been able to verify this, does anyone have a source of historic Scottish politics approval ratings that I can check this statement agaisnt?
Dan the man made in an interesting point re our EU contribution. The gist of it was. If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
But Gove's argument today was if you stop paying, the council will empty your bins anuway
I didn't see Gove's speech today as was learning the intricacies of sequencing tarmac deliveries. Was he seriously arguing that if we leave the EU they will still pay farm subsidies for example? Bloody madness if he did.
No he wasn't. Not in any way at all. You should know better than to believe anything Scott posts on here.
regrettably so, we have had a whole thread based on Scott posting crap and Carlotta pushing it along.
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
If the choice is between Remain with all the risks to the financial sector which I have posted about elsewhere and a Leave where the financial sector does not have access to the single market, then that is a Hobson's choice, as far as I'm concerned.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
Well since you bring it up, given that the Italians were the enemy for 4 years and only surrendered when we had invaded them and they could see the war was lost they should count themselves very lucky they were treated so leniently after the war.
Off topic, but doing wikipediaing the other day, came across a small italian political party, the Conservatives and Reformists, whose page states 'CR, emerged in May 2015 from a split from Forza Italia (FI), is modelled on the British Conservative Party and David Cameron's brand of liberal conservatism, vision and leadership (in the run-up of the 2015 UK general election Fitto, Capezzone and other 28 MPs of their faction within FI had publicly endorsed Cameron in a letter to The Telegraph);
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
Fu that.
@kle4 - on your first point, that move by Cameron was very, very heavily criticised on here at the time (remember Tim with his Latvian SS and homophobes nonsense?) and all sorts of criticism levelled at him by European leaders and the EPP that he'd lose influence outside the club. He also suffered several resignations and retirements from Tory europhiles.
So he actually did it unilaterally, and quite quickly, a bit like an internal Brexit.
And it got results. And it was fine.
There's a lesson there.
In all honesty I have no idea if it has any influence or even how that would be manifested, but the ECR is now the third largest group of the European Parliament so purely on those terms it's doing ok.
Also I see Viscount Thurso is back in the Lords by a landslide 100% of the vote. I'm genuinely disappointed none of the three electors followed my suggestion to spoil their ballot just to mess with people.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Ok, so perhaps the word "liberation" wasn't the best one to use .... [Snipped].
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
Well since you bring it up, given that the Italians were the enemy for 4 years and only surrendered when we had invaded them and they could see the war was lost they should count themselves very lucky they were treated so leniently after the war.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainlut the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
I have seen nothing to date saying Gove has made any comment on desdiring the break up of the EU except here on PB. Even the source data - Laura Kuensberg -doesn't attribute it to Gove but to "Leave". I'm putting that down to an overhyped up kipper myself as I suspect wiser heads will say it's a a daft thing to say and a gift to opposition spin doctors.
In reality if the UK PM can't move much in the EU quite how a bloke make an unguarded comment to a journo can lies beyond me. The EU will stay as a poltical block as that;s the realpolitik of those who want to stay in it.
As for Italy see my other comment.
We seem to be at cross purposes. I was referring to the remark Gove made in his speech about "democratic liberation".
Those arguing to stay in the EU to reform it are like those who fool for the same computer virus again and again. Not only have we seen the failure of reform after Cameron's renegotiation, but we have promised to wave through the next treaty without further demands. There is no further reform. As Cameron says, we would already be voting for the reformed EU as negotiated.
"For Europe, Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent.
If we vote to leave we will have - in the words of a former British Prime Minister - saved our country by our exertions and Europe by our example."
Very different to the spin.
I disagree.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Ok, so perhaps the word "liberation" wasn't the best one to use .... [Snipped].
That was exactly my initial point.
Fair enough, I think you're making too much of a big deal out of just one word.
That doesn't mean your point isn't valid, but one can overegg it.
Off topic, but doing wikipediaing the other day, came across a small italian political party, the Conservatives and Reformists, whose page states 'CR, emerged in May 2015 from a split from Forza Italia (FI), is modelled on the British Conservative Party and David Cameron's brand of liberal conservatism, vision and leadership (in the run-up of the 2015 UK general election Fitto, Capezzone and other 28 MPs of their faction within FI had publicly endorsed Cameron in a letter to The Telegraph);
As Sean Fear has said, to be full-hearted we've have to accept full economic and political union and see the answer to every problem as "More Europe".
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
Fu that.
@kle4 - on your first point, that move by Cameron was very, very heavily criticised on here at the time (remember Tim with his Latvian SS and homophobes nonsense?) and all sorts of criticism levelled at him by European leaders and the EPP that he'd lose influence outside the club. He also suffered several resignations and retirements from Tory europhiles.
So he actually did it unilaterally, and quite quickly, a bit like an internal Brexit.
And it got results. And it was fine.
There's a lesson there.
In all honesty I have no idea if it has any influence or even how that would be manifested, but the ECR is now the third largest group of the European Parliament so purely on those terms it's doing ok.
Yes, so maybe a non-EU UK led group could be a third of Europe.
The UK demonstrates leadership in Europe when it does what it believes to be right in its own interests, and not in just in accordance with the wishes of the EU elites.
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
I think that is well recognised but there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and countries like Italy, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Greece have all fallen victim to it.
That doesn't mean to say their experiences are identical to our experiences, of course.
I don't think Michael Gove is intending to make the Nazi/Soviet comparison you imply.
I'm certain that he is not intending it. But I am saying that others will hear different echoes. I am half Italian. Italians of my mother's generation had an ambivalent attitude to liberation: grateful for it, of course, hugely. But also humiliated at having to be in that position. And resentful at what can come across as arrogance by the liberators.
There is certainlut the rest of the EU.
Unusual nonsense from you miss C
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
I have seen nothing to
As for Italy see my other comment.
We seem to be at cross purposes. I was referring to the remark Gove made in his speech about "democratic liberation".
which as I interpret means simply the leadership needs to reflect more the views of the electorate - a position which oddly Juncker agreed with today.,
but maybe that's because there's a referendum.
I was much more suprised at the R4 article on Italy which said the whole tenet of italy's relation with Europe is shifting because of economic austerity, immigration and the gap between leaders and led. much of the blame is being placed on EU if the commentator is to be believed. That's a huge shift for Italy if true.
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
If the choice is between Remain with all the risks to the financial sector which I have posted about elsewhere and a Leave where the financial sector does not have access to the single market, then that is a Hobson's choice, as far as I'm concerned.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
FWIW, I think financial services access would be part of the renegotiation but, if that is your final position, I'd be very sorry to lose your support over it.
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
Well since you bring it up, given that the Italians were the enemy for 4 years and only surrendered when we had invaded them and they could see the war was lost they should count themselves very lucky they were treated so leniently after the war.
The same could be said of the French and others. William Hitchcock's book "Liberation: The Bitter Road to Freedom 1944-45" is very good on the reactions of liberators and liberated at the time.
You may well have a point. But it comes across as arrogant - the point, rather than you personally. One could just as easily say that the British were lucky that they were not in a position to have to make the difficult moral choices between collaboration or starvation and that if they'd been in that position perhaps they might not have always behaved well.
All I'm saying is that if Gove is going to use the word "liberation" in relation to the rest of Europe (as he did in his speech) he might do well to think about how it might be heard by the rest of Europe, that's all.
In the quote: "Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent ..." I interpreted democratic liberation as the example of the UK's leaving the EU prompting other countries to leave the EU. I can't even parse it in a different way after trying, let alone be convinced that such an effortful translation would be what he meant. It's a startlingly ungenerous position to take.
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
If the choice is between Remain with all the risks to the financial sector which I have posted about elsewhere and a Leave where the financial sector does not have access to the single market, then that is a Hobson's choice, as far as I'm concerned.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
FWIW, I think financial services access would be part of the renegotiation but, if that is your final position, I'd be very sorry to lose your support over it.
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
It isn't. I enjoy the arguments. I don't know how I will vote. Some days the whole topic bores me to tears and I think that I may not vote at all. (Though I would think that a dereliction of duty.)
O/T Manitoba GE in Canada today . NDP going to lose power for the first time since 1999 to the Progressive Conservatives . They have lost around 1/2 their vote share in roughly equal proportions to Con/Liberal and Greens
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
I've missed it, been busy today. What is the unified vision going forwards? I was expecting Gove to be pro-EEA.
@Cyclefree I think you are being obtuse when "democratic liberation" (we surely know what he means) is interpreted as post WW2 "liberation".
Not interpreted as. I said "echoes of".
The British lecturing others on how something that is good for Britain (exit from the EU) will also be good for them plays to all the worst stereotypes of the arrogant British high-mindedly and deliberately conflating their own interests with that of everyone else.
Those arguing to stay in the EU to reform it are like those who fool for the same computer virus again and again. Not only have we seen the failure of reform after Cameron's renegotiation, but we have promised to wave through the next treaty without further demands. There is no further reform. As Cameron says, we would already be voting for the reformed EU as negotiated.
But but but you are forgetting the great tampon tax reform of 2016...it will go down in history as one of the biggest reforms of the eu!
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
If the choice is between Remain with all the risks to the financial sector which I have posted about elsewhere and a Leave where the financial sector does not have access to the single market, then that is a Hobson's choice, as far as I'm concerned.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
FWIW, I think financial services access would be part of the renegotiation but, if that is your final position, I'd be very sorry to lose your support over it.
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
It isn't. I enjoy the arguments. I don't know how I will vote. Some days the whole topic bores me to tears and I think that I may not vote at all. (Though I would think that a dereliction of duty.)
In the quote: "Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent ..." I interpreted democratic liberation as the example of the UK's leaving the EU prompting other countries to leave the EU. I can't even parse it in a different way after trying, let alone be convinced that such an effortful translation would be what he meant. It's a startlingly ungenerous position to take.
No, it won't "destroy" the City. Far from it. If we get no preferential access for financial services inside the EU it might lead to a reduction of GVA 2%-4% by 2030, but it won't destroy it.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
If the choice is between Remain with all the risks to the financial sector which I have posted about elsewhere and a Leave where the financial sector does not have access to the single market, then that is a Hobson's choice, as far as I'm concerned.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
FWIW, I think financial services access would be part of the renegotiation but, if that is your final position, I'd be very sorry to lose your support over it.
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
Banks will not be willing to relocate to the EU when the UK improves its regulatory system towards them when we repeal the poor EU directives, while the EU continues to rack up new regulations.
@Cyclefree I think you are being obtuse when "democratic liberation" (we surely know what he means) is interpreted as post WW2 "liberation".
Not interpreted as. I said "echoes of".
The British lecturing others on how something that is good for Britain (exit from the EU) will also be good for them plays to all the worst stereotypes of the arrogant British high-mindedly and deliberately conflating their own interests with that of everyone else.
LOL that's just so english middle class as a statement.
do you think anyone will notice ? We've had so much of everyone telling each other that what's good for them is good for Europe it may get lost in the crowd. France and germany are hardly backward about coming forward.
it's a souk I'm afraid and good manners went out the window in the 1960s.
In the quote: "Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent ..." I interpreted democratic liberation as the example of the UK's leaving the EU prompting other countries to leave the EU. I can't even parse it in a different way after trying, let alone be convinced that such an effortful translation would be what he meant. It's a startlingly ungenerous position to take.
Cyclefree - I'm copying below what I sent to DavidL earlier on, re. this issue. It revolves around the issue of the importance of passporting for financial services exports. The PWC study linked suggests the effects of Brexit are not likely to be very big on financial services exports, even with various 'add-ons' they have thought of. I'd be interested in why you (apparently) think their view is so wrong.
Thanks. It needs a more considered reply than I have time for now. But briefly:-
1. Banks are finding conditions very tough. They are all cutting costs and moving staff and services to cheaper locations. There is a lot of uncertainty around the markets, the cost of regulatory capital etc. So banks are getting out of businesses which are not profitable. A good thing. But it has an economic cost. Add to this such a big change i.e. the whole basis on which they can do business in the Europe region has changed and this is adding a whole new level of uncertainty, far greater than the uncertainty of having access to the single market but on different terms. This is saying no access at all. That is a biggie. And it will have big consequences. 2. The cost of capital is high so you want to have as few entities requiring regulatory capital as possible and put them in the locations which will have the most advantages for you: access to markets, costs, expertise etc. 3. London has many advantages but it is also expensive. Being outside the EU without the passport will cause very significant disruption. Banks will consider whether London should be their main place of business for the EMEA region. If they have to have a place within the EU as well as in the UK that will cause issues for the UK. And other countries will be keen to capture as much of that business as they can.
I'm not saying that an industry will be destroyed overnight. I think the City could live with access to the single market on EEA terms. But no access at all. Hmm..... I don't think that Gove - based on what I have seen of the speech - has really thought through what it will mean, not just for this sector but all the sectors dependant on it.
Clearly the City is not the only factor to be taken into account. But it is important to those working in it or dependant on it. And it is to those dependant on the tax revenues.
It's certainly a bold call. And clear. It will attract some. It will put off others. That was always going to be the case with the Leave campaign.
Well put; I bemoaned the diminution of influence we would have in EEA not for a moment did I think they would throw the baby out with the bath water.
What a day for me to be jammed. Mike (G not S) could at least have waited for a quieter moment.
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
In the quote: "Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent ..." I interpreted democratic liberation as the example of the UK's leaving the EU prompting other countries to leave the EU. I can't even parse it in a different way after trying, let alone be convinced that such an effortful translation would be what he meant. It's a startlingly ungenerous position to take.
Try reading his speech.
Not exactly a winning or charming argument.
It answers your question. If you'd read it, you wouldn't be asking it.
FWIW, I think financial services access would be part of the renegotiation but, if that is your final position, I'd be very sorry to lose your support over it.
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
Banks will not be willing to relocate to the EU when the UK improves its regulatory system towards them when we repeal the poor EU directives, while the EU continues to rack up new regulations.
I think the City would do well under any eventuality, but I concede there could be initial high disruption here if no deal is done. That's why I think we'll find a way to ensure there will be one, even if that involves paying more cash in.
The global future is interesting. From OpenEurope:
"For example, whilst in 2005 the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy accounted for 27% of global banking assets, PriceWaterhouseCoopers projects that in 2050 that will have decreased to 12.5%. PWC also projects that Brazil, Russia, China and India will see their share of global banking assets leap to 32.9% in 2050 from the 2005 figure of 7.9%."
So short-term, a bit sticky. Long-term: looking very rosy for an independent Britain.
I'm a long-term man given this is a long-term vote.
Cyclefree - I'm copying below what I sent to DavidL earlier on, re. this issue. It revolves around the issue of the importance of passporting for financial services exports. The PWC study linked suggests the effects of Brexit are not likely to be very big on financial services exports, even with various 'add-ons' they have thought of. I'd be interested in why you (apparently) think their view is so wrong.
Thanks. It needs a more considered reply than I have time for now. But briefly:-
1. Banks are finding conditions very tough. They are all cutting costs and moving staff and services to cheaper locations. There is a lot of uncertainty around the markets, the cost of regulatory capital etc. So banks are getting out of businesses which are not profitable. A good thing. But it has an economic cost. Add to this such a big change i.e. the whole basis on which they can do business in the Europe region has changed and this is adding a whole new level of uncertainty, far greater than the uncertainty of having access to the single market but on different terms. This is saying no access at all. That is a biggie. And it will have big consequences. 2. The cost of capital is high so you want to have as few entities requiring regulatory capital as possible and put them in the locations which will have the most advantages for you: access to markets, costs, expertise etc. 3. London has many advantages but it is also expensive. Being outside the EU without the passport will cause very significant disruption. Banks will consider whether London should be their main place of business for the EMEA region. If they have to have a place within the EU as well as in the UK that will cause issues for the UK. And other countries will be keen to capture as much of that business as they can.
I'm not saying that an industry will be destroyed overnight. I think the City could live with access to the single market on EEA terms. But no access at all. Hmm..... I don't think that Gove - based on what I have seen of the speech - has really thought through what it will mean, not just for this sector but all the sectors dependant on it.
Clearly the City is not the only factor to be taken into account. But it is important to those working in it or dependant on it. And it is to those dependant on the tax revenues.
It's certainly a bold call. And clear. It will attract some. It will put off others. That was always going to be the case with the Leave campaign.
I'd certainly be interested in a more considered reply, including to the key arguments in the report I linked to.
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
Yep it is certainly no half measures well done them.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
Yep it is certainly no half measures well done them.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.
tsk and there was me thinking you could take a risk when you're really a building society branch manager :-)
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
Yep it is certainly no half measures well done them.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.
tsk and there was me thinking you could take a risk when you're really a building society branch manager :-)
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
Yep it is certainly no half measures well done them.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.
It seems what you really want is to institutionally ban Labour from taking office ever again!
Does anyone think, that apart from the existing committed leavers, today's speech by Michael Gove will convert the undecided
No. Not on its own. What it does do is remove an important line of attack that Remain have been trying to use which is to claim Leave have conflicting visions of what they are offering. That fox has been shot. That can only help Leave going forward.
This is pretty close to full independence and obtaining freedom on free movement of people, social and employment policy, energy and climate policy, consumer rights, commercial policy, agricultural policy, fisheries policy, regional policy, external trade policy, justice and home affairs, and foreign policy might allow a broad coalition to be built from those who'd wish to use those new powers
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave) (2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
Yep it is certainly no half measures well done them.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.
It seems what you really want is to institutionally ban Labour from taking office ever again!
Those arguing to stay in the EU to reform it are like those who fool for the same computer virus again and again. Not only have we seen the failure of reform after Cameron's renegotiation, but we have promised to wave through the next treaty without further demands. There is no further reform. As Cameron says, we would already be voting for the reformed EU as negotiated.
But but but you are forgetting the great tampon tax reform of 2016...it will go down in history as one of the biggest reforms of the eu!
That was the biggest WTF of the last few months - Everyone assumed it was about VAT rates being returned to national rather than EU control, but it was quite literally just about the tampons.
Comments
I was - and remain - pretty critical of Cameron's negotiations, particularly as they affect the financial services sector but that's nothing compared to this. Without the single passport it will be very difficult for that sector. Talking about "ingenuity" is not enough. It will mean a very significant hit to a significant sector of our economy. That has implications for tax revenue and much else besides.
Now you might still argue that it is worth it because of all the other advantages but Leave are essentially conceding that there will be a great deal of economic pain.
They may have made a coherent case - but it reads to me (at first glance) like a coherent case that might win a legal argument or a debating competition or an essay prize at university rather than a case that makes sense to voters. Try saying to people: well you may lose your job or it might migrate to another country inside the EU (and a lot of back office jobs are already going to low-cost locations, such as Poland) but it's all right because we can stop immigrants coming in. Those people might just reply that all that's been achieved is creating the conditions in which English people will have to turn into emigrants to other countries.
I used to work for the Big 4. I heard these self-serving justifications all the time.
Slightly more surprisingly mind is that Brexit doesn't have http://nffo.org.uk/news/nffo-will-provide-referendum-platform.html onboard.
I'd have thought that'd be very low hanging fruit.
They could all be going on a picnic.....................
https://twitter.com/BigStick2013/status/722484218081595392
There is certainly a democratic deficit in the EU. But by comparison with what came before for Italians and others the EU is a huge improvement.
We have a different perspective - one reason why we sit so uneasily within it. But we should not forget that other countries have a different perspective to ours. I think that whatever the outcome we will need to develop and need a lot of goodwill from other countries. Implying that our departure from the EU will lead to "democratic liberation" to countries which really have been democratically liberated from Soviet tyranny seems to me to strike the wrong note, an arrogant note. We complain about the EU having a tin ear about Britain. There's some of that going on here in Gove's speech when he talks about the rest of the EU.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Leave's current position will destroy the City. That will have a very significant effect on a number of other sectors as well.
-------------------------------
Cyclefree - I'm copying below what I sent to DavidL earlier on, re. this issue. It revolves around the issue of the importance of passporting for financial services exports. The PWC study linked suggests the effects of Brexit are not likely to be very big on financial services exports, even with various 'add-ons' they have thought of. I'd be interested in why you (apparently) think their view is so wrong.
[to DavidL - re passporting]
UK financial services exports to the EU most certainly did not start in 1999 or 2000 and indeed were quite significant before that. So how great is the downside risk, really?
Similarly, the big US (and many European) banks came here before the passporting regime as well. I know they say they like it, but that clearly wasn't the original motivation in arriving.
I enclose FYI a report I have seen by PWC which produces rather small estimates of the long-term impact of Brexit on UK financial services GDP, which are moreover somewhat bulked out by questionable assumptions re, immigration and 'uncertainty'. The impacts are of the scale 2-4% by 2030 (depending on the post-Brexit trade regime) of which trade effects only are 0.6-2%. These translate into really small effects on broader UK GDP.
They go on to caveat these results with some hand waving about relocation risks but without anything to back it up really (given who the client was, I imagine there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on the drafting based on 'why can't we make the numbers bigger/stress more downside risks' etc.)
https://www.pwc.co.uk/financial-services/assets/Leaving-the-EU-implications-for-the-UK-FS-sector.pdf
This is what's so irritating about the Referendum question. We should really be asked to 'Leave' or 'Commit to going in properly'. And if the latter wins, do it. The half baked situation we're in now will never work.
who unsurprisingly backs remain.
This is from someone who really is avoiding all the nonsense in the press and has no real solid convictions either way, but who has decided which way he shall vote.
The gist of it was.
If someone asks you how much council Tax you pay, do you nett off the value of getting your bins emptied before giving the figure that you pay?
http://www.cityam.com/239128/the-treasury-has-it-entirely-wrong-the-british-economy-would-gain-from-brexit
I can't see our population endorse that any time soon, even if we do vote Remain.
one idiot making a remark doesn;t make a policy.
likewise one member leaving a club doesn't mean the club breaks up.
1. Banks are finding conditions very tough. They are all cutting costs and moving staff and services to cheaper locations. There is a lot of uncertainty around the markets, the cost of regulatory capital etc. So banks are getting out of businesses which are not profitable. A good thing. But it has an economic cost. Add to this such a big change i.e. the whole basis on which they can do business in the Europe region has changed and this is adding a whole new level of uncertainty, far greater than the uncertainty of having access to the single market but on different terms. This is saying no access at all. That is a biggie. And it will have big consequences.
2. The cost of capital is high so you want to have as few entities requiring regulatory capital as possible and put them in the locations which will have the most advantages for you: access to markets, costs, expertise etc.
3. London has many advantages but it is also expensive. Being outside the EU without the passport will cause very significant disruption. Banks will consider whether London should be their main place of business for the EMEA region. If they have to have a place within the EU as well as in the UK that will cause issues for the UK. And other countries will be keen to capture as much of that business as they can.
I'm not saying that an industry will be destroyed overnight. I think the City could live with access to the single market on EEA terms. But no access at all. Hmm..... I don't think that Gove - based on what I have seen of the speech - has really thought through what it will mean, not just for this sector but all the sectors dependant on it.
Clearly the City is not the only factor to be taken into account. But it is important to those working in it or dependant on it. And it is to those dependant on the tax revenues.
It's certainly a bold call. And clear. It will attract some. It will put off others. That was always going to be the case with the Leave campaign.
Doing it properly also means sending in some decent politicians who'll fight our corner. Not the Ex Westminster deadbeats looking to enrich themselves at the trough, or the half wits from UKIP that can't be arsed to vote.
Is the "idiot making a remark" you refer to Gove? He's the one referring to "democratic liberation."
The perspective of the liberated is very different from that of the liberators. Something the liberators are prone not to realise.
I read Gove's remarks with my Italian hat on and I could hear the echoes of endless family discussions in the past about their attitude to the Americans and the British. It was rather more nuanced and not necessarily as adoring of the Allies as the latter might like to think.
Was he seriously arguing that if we leave the EU they will still pay farm subsidies for example?
Bloody madness if he did.
And people say Cameron has no influence!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives_and_Reformists_(Italy) Fundamentally that is the problem. It doesn't take much for the leaders of the bureaucracy and those who endorse it to become pretty contemptuous and dismissive of those who suggest reform, so their commitment to every doing any serious reform is questionable at best; they just don't think it is necessary, unless it is reform in the direction of more integration.
The public by and large, and I include me, might be able to be sold on staying in if we halt things as we are (even if many would like some reversal), and it will come down to how many think we have achieved that, but I think there's no chance of that.
On the plus side EU regulations like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, bonus restrictions, Solvency II, short-selling ban and the proposed financial transactions tax could be repealed and prevented.
And I'm fully confident our excellent financial sector would find alternative markets and growth potential elsewhere and our language, legal system and global role would be unaffected.
Of course, if your top priority to avoid any risk of short-term disruption to the City, then you might wish to vote Remain, but the EU will continue to regulate and control financial services if we do (ever more stringently in my opinion) through exercising the eurozone bloc vote.
There are risks in both remaining and in leaving. On balance I think it makes sense to take back control, so we are able to mitigate those risks ourselves
My wife is Bulgarian by the way. Bulgarians see the EU as less corrupt than their country and need the development funding so, therefore, see a net benefit in development to it.
By they are still just as annoyed by its edicts and diktats as we are.
In reality if the UK PM can't move much in the EU quite how a bloke make an unguarded comment to a journo can lies beyond me. The EU will stay as a poltical block as that;s the realpolitik of those who want to stay in it.
As for Italy see my other comment.
So he actually did it unilaterally, and quite quickly, a bit like an internal Brexit.
And it got results. And it was fine.
There's a lesson there.
Just pure crap.
I know the sorts of factors which motivate bank management at the moment. If the choice is between an office in country A which allows them sell into countries B, C, D, E, F and G and an office in country X where it is not clear whether or not they can sell into A, B, C, D, E, F and G and if they can it will cost more etc, then banks under pressure from shareholders to deliver worthwhile returns on capital in businesses where the margins are very tight will opt for the former. Not the latter. Banks will not be sentimental about the UK, however wonderful it has been to them in the past and however lovely London may be.
This is just a slow motion study in the Conservatives trashing their reputations to the amused applause of their opponents.
That doesn't mean your point isn't valid, but one can overegg it.
The UK demonstrates leadership in Europe when it does what it believes to be right in its own interests, and not in just in accordance with the wishes of the EU elites.
but maybe that's because there's a referendum.
I was much more suprised at the R4 article on Italy which said the whole tenet of italy's relation with Europe is shifting because of economic austerity, immigration and the gap between leaders and led. much of the blame is being placed on EU if the commentator is to be believed. That's a huge shift for Italy if true.
I think you are being obtuse when "democratic liberation" (we surely know what he means) is interpreted as post WW2 "liberation".
I work in the City/Canary Wharf in the professional services sector, and it won't affect mine.
Clinton 47 .. Sanders 41
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/california-democratic-primary-polling/
You may well have a point. But it comes across as arrogant - the point, rather than you personally. One could just as easily say that the British were lucky that they were not in a position to have to make the difficult moral choices between collaboration or starvation and that if they'd been in that position perhaps they might not have always behaved well.
All I'm saying is that if Gove is going to use the word "liberation" in relation to the rest of Europe (as he did in his speech) he might do well to think about how it might be heard by the rest of Europe, that's all.
"Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting - the democratic liberation of a whole Continent ..."
I interpreted democratic liberation as the example of the UK's leaving the EU prompting other countries to leave the EU. I can't even parse it in a different way after trying, let alone be convinced that such an effortful translation would be what he meant.
It's a startlingly ungenerous position to take.
A roast lamb dinner calls.......
The British lecturing others on how something that is good for Britain (exit from the EU) will also be good for them plays to all the worst stereotypes of the arrogant British high-mindedly and deliberately conflating their own interests with that of everyone else.
do you think anyone will notice ? We've had so much of everyone telling each other that what's good for them is good for Europe it may get lost in the crowd. France and germany are hardly backward about coming forward.
it's a souk I'm afraid and good manners went out the window in the 1960s.
'It will be interesting how Germany and France respond when they receive the inevitable questions from the international press.'
Everyone knows how Germany & France will respond,the end of the world for the UK blah, blah,blah
What a day for me to be jammed. Mike (G not S) could at least have waited for a quieter moment.
What happens now is twofold:
(1) The EU will throw every resource and weapon they have into this fight (although this might easily backfire, and benefit Leave)
(2) Remain will spend the next eight weeks finding every single possible person/organisation/academic they can to trash the deal and proposal, and why it wouldn't work (although that runs the risk of talking down Britain)
Vote Leave will have calculated that those two risks outweigh the risk of having conflicting visions, and an exciting prospectus, which is exactly where the TV adverts were heading otherwise.
The global future is interesting. From OpenEurope:
"For example, whilst in 2005 the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy accounted for 27% of global banking assets, PriceWaterhouseCoopers projects that in 2050 that will have decreased
to 12.5%. PWC also projects that Brazil, Russia, China and India will see their share of global banking assets leap to 32.9% in 2050 from the 2005 figure of 7.9%."
So short-term, a bit sticky. Long-term: looking very rosy for an independent Britain.
I'm a long-term man given this is a long-term vote.
Not for the faint-hearted, though, and we know how people break to the status quo when confronted by change. And what a change!
I think the value destruction in wiping the board clean and starting again will be significant, however, and there is an outside chance that Lab or indeed anyone might seize on how those on lower incomes will suffer even if only for the first 10 or 20 years.