politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An SDP Mark 2 is now a real possibility within 4 months
Options
Comments
-
How about taking the view that the 48% who voted remain, plus a rather large chunk of Leavers (the Richard Tyndall and Smithson Jr types) are perfectly happy with free movement.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.MaxPB said:No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.0 -
No lack of that here at Toms towers, though it might be more accurately described as stomach turning over discomfort.SouthamObserver said:
Boris is going to be so hated!Richard_Nabavi said:
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.MaxPB said:No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.0 -
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....0 -
TBH I think he's entirely right - he's not distracting from Cameron and turning it into a media circus. The hacks would love to spend acres of inches dissecting it. What a colossal load of timewasting trivia. Boris isn't feeding them.Casino_Royale said:
Ditto Gove. They're not doing opportunistic grandstanding like Sturgeon. I think that's rather admirable. And grown up.0 -
It's postponed, not cancelled.DanSmith said:
exactly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Jez is quitting, so no point them turning up?Pulpstar said:Why would you cancel an event with overwhelmin demand ?
0 -
0
-
@YellowSubmarine
Well it's unsustainable because a fair few (I'd guess about a third) leave voters aren't motivated by immigration primarily but by sovereignty, most will be comfortable with staying in the single market and accepting free movement. Added to the 48% it's enough to get an EEA style arrangement over the line. Probably with a decent majority.0 -
Nah, he's an MP. They should show up anyway. The fact they are front and centre adds rather than detracts to the importance of turning up. Their absence implies that have something to hide or be ashamed of.PlatoSaid said:
TBH I think he's entirely right - he's not distracting from Cameron and turning it into a media circus. The hacks would love to spend acres of inches dissecting it. What a colossal load of timewasting trivia. Boris isn't feeding them.Casino_Royale said:
Ditto Gove. They're not doing opportunistic grandstanding like Sturgeon. I think that's rather admirable. And grown up.0 -
In which case and if we do not get the single market, free movement in some form it will be back to the seventies, we may enter a recession, Paris will challenge London as the most influential city in Europe and may even overtake it. Fewer foreigners will want to come here, both to study, to work and to visit. House prices may fall and be more affordable but that is the only bright spotrcs1000 said:
I think the EU will end up without a financial capital, if we go. Dublin will clearly become a lot more important too.edmundintokyo said:Interesting timeline here:
https://twitter.com/b_judah/with_replies
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
It's also important to remember that there are lots of businesses that aren't part of financial services, but exist here because of them. Corporate law office sit round the corner from investment banks, because it's all part of the M&A, corporate finance remit. If the investment bankers are now working in Paris, the lawyers will follow them there.
Prime London down 60%, I stick by that forecast.0 -
What I'm suggesting as a possibility is effectively that, but with some kind of face-saving fudge to make the betrayal less blatant. That will make it easier to get at least some Leave voters to accept it.Anorak said:It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.
0 -
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....0 -
I don't think anyone has the need to take comments like that seriously.MonikerDiCanio said:
These are serious days. A passionate europhile and Brussels stooge like Cameron has to get out of the way. Now.david_herdson said:
Because unlike in the Magic Circle days, it takes longer than Pat Glass's shadow cabinet career to choose a new leader.MonikerDiCanio said:
If he's quit, why's he still here? Eden and Chamberlain were at least gentlemen.david_herdson said:
Dave's already quit. Nothing wrong with staying on as interim leader. I presume that Labour MPs would grant Corbyn at least that until September.MonikerDiCanio said:
After you, Dave. What's keeping you ?FrancisUrquhart said:Bloody hell even Cameron is telling Jezza to go....
0 -
Where is Boris exactly? It's rather odd he's literally nowhere to be seen.0
-
'Johnson' and 'doing a lot of work' in the same sentence!MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....0 -
I think that's probably quite likely. The French see this as an opportunity - I've seen no negative backlash/hurt feelings that we rejected the EU, rather they are welcoming the opportunity. News coverage is shifting from shock and how it affects the UK to how Paris can benefit. Even amongst the general populace (that I've spoken with anyway) it's an opportunity. My own girlfriend said she was glad we voted to leave because we were clearly never happy! France won't be sorry to see the back of us.Alistair said:
Iedmundintokyo said:Interesting timeline here:
https://twitter.com/b_judah/with_replies
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
It is a no brainer of a move for them.edmundintokyo said:Interesting timeline here:
https://twitter.com/b_judah/with_replies
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.0 -
Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?0
-
The pantomine's over. Accept it.david_herdson said:
I don't think anyone has the need to take comments like that seriously.MonikerDiCanio said:
These are serious days. A passionate europhile and Brussels stooge like Cameron has to get out of the way. Now.david_herdson said:
Because unlike in the Magic Circle days, it takes longer than Pat Glass's shadow cabinet career to choose a new leader.MonikerDiCanio said:
If he's quit, why's he still here? Eden and Chamberlain were at least gentlemen.david_herdson said:
Dave's already quit. Nothing wrong with staying on as interim leader. I presume that Labour MPs would grant Corbyn at least that until September.MonikerDiCanio said:
After you, Dave. What's keeping you ?FrancisUrquhart said:Bloody hell even Cameron is telling Jezza to go....
0 -
They can only empty chair us on issues directly related to the Article 50 negotiations. On all other matters we are still part of the EU until we leave.Pulpstar said:EU leaders are going to empty chair us till art 50 is invoked I think. They won't be messed around by our interal party squabbles, and why should they be.
0 -
YellowSubmarine said:
A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will. </blockquote
Longer term it depends how many of the French working and lower middle classes are attracted by the prospect of ending free movement and voting for Le Pen0 -
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....0 -
Yes, it's a real bugger's muddle. The problem is that Leavers got too carried away with the high jinks of the campaign and with trivia - seeing Osborne thwarted, Bob Geldof's pleasure craft, Giesla Stewart - without remotely thinking that there might be an outcome to all of this. Never has a political decision of this magnitude been decided on such froth. Sadly, we're now in the rude-awakening phase.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.MaxPB said:No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.0 -
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
Is this '50 million were going to show up, therefore it was cancelled, but still 5000 showed up' the new - 'Attendance was a lot lower than expected because very few people could be arsed?'
I've seen this odd statement used twice in the past two days for different protests.0 -
Yes, we will have a fig leaf on immigration and that will placate Tory voters. It will be enough for the Tory party to get a majority and keep us in the single market.Richard_Nabavi said:
What I'm suggesting as a possibility is effectively that, but with some kind of face-saving fudge to make the betrayal less blatant. That will make it easier to get at least some Leave voters to accept it.Anorak said:It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.
0 -
This is why I'm delighted DC is staying for now. I believe he will put the country's long-term interests first, and if that means upsetting a chunk of Con voters, so be it (witness Civil Partnerships).Richard_Nabavi said:
What I'm suggesting as a possibility is effectively that, but with some kind of face-saving fudge to make the betrayal less blatant. That will make it easier to get at least some Leave voters to accept it.Anorak said:It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.
Boris, on the other hand...0 -
Yes.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
Probably busy ringing up MP's to get their support.The_Apocalypse said:Where is Boris exactly? It's rather odd he's literally nowhere to be seen.
0 -
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.0 -
Bargaining stage.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is it even politically possible to stay in the Single Market? EU leaders are unanimous that the UK cannot cherry-pick the benefits of EU membership without signing up to the same freedom of movement rules which Norway and Switzerland have to accept. This is a principle which is absolute. Equally, UK voters have been told, in unambiguous terms, that leaving the EU was largely about not having freedom of movement. Our EU friends cannot, because of domestic political concerns, budge on this, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. So either the UK negotiators betray the Leave voters, which looks politically suicidal, or the UK and the whole of the EU take the severe economic hit.MaxPB said:No it isn't. 48% of people voted to keep free movement, only around half of the leave vote was driven by immigration. Without the strong argument against immigration Leave were sitting on about 40% of the vote. The marginal increase from that was driven by immigration, a majority of people in the country favour staying in the EU single market even if it means accepting free movement.
The only way of squaring this circle is some very creative dishonesty. If we are to stay in the Single Market – which is very much in the interests of both sides – negotiators will need to find some face-saving formula which simultaneously allows UK voters to be told that we have ‘taken back control’ of EU migration, and allows continental politicians to tell their voters that we haven’t. The key to this riddle might lie in the phrase ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. We need a formula by which in reality we sign up to freedom of movement, to satisfy our EU friends, but in constitutional theory we don’t, to fob off Leave voters with the fiction that parliament remains sovereign on the issue. That would be hard, but perhaps not impossible.
It would also be a democratic outrage, of course, stoking up trouble for the future, and it wouldn’t really fool anyone. However, betrayal of some sort is inevitable. The Leave campaign’s promises that voters could have their cake, eat it, take out a mortgage on it, and get a £350M cashback, were never going to be deliverable. The actual political choice between the economics and EU immigration, which should have been made explicit before the referendum, cannot now be avoided.
0 -
Just a thought, but a while ago I said Osborne was Antigonus Monopthalmus (and, true to form, he won't ever reign supreme). The risk for Boris is that he's in a similar position and his enemies will temporarily unite in a bid to prevent him attaining the prize.0
-
I don't get the impression that intra-Eu free movement is as big a problem in France. I'm not sure what the largest groups are, but don't think they have anything in the same league as our polish population. Their attraction to Le pen will be driven more by problems with Muslim immigration, and even more so, Muslim integration/assimilation in France.HYUFD said:YellowSubmarine said:A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
0 -
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.0 -
Sounds like a bonus given their woeful track record....Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
Hang on. If there is no tariff on say China > EU and no tariff EU > UK, how does that work (restrictions other than tariffs?)?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.0 -
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....0 -
I read those tweets. Is there any way to save passporting from here?Alistair said:
It is a no brainer of a move for them.edmundintokyo said:Interesting timeline here:
https://twitter.com/b_judah/with_replies
Basically he's saying France and Germany (especially France) are plotting to box British politicians into giving up passporting in exchange for the ability to restrict immigration. If they make this offer publicly it will be hard for British politicians to resist because the voters will think they're just screwing the bankers.
The British financial industry then gets shared out among Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.0 -
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.0 -
There are country of origin rules on trade.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Hang on. If there is no tariff on say China > EU and no tariff EU > UK, how does that work (restrictions other than tariffs?)?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
That's a bit harsh: EFTA and the EU have an almost identical list of free trade deals.Mortimer said:
Sounds like a bonus given their woeful track record....Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
The result will likely be something around EEA, with theoretical freedom of movement but discrimination allowed in state benefits removing a massive pull factor.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
Impressed with Cameron today. He seems relieved to be going, and is very much of the opinion that the people have spoken, so we should do the best for the country in listening to everyone whilst still leaving certain key decisions to his successor.
Shame he couldn't have maintained the same level of statesmanship and dignity during the referendum campaign.0 -
The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.0 -
I see. So for example we impose a tariff on goods entering from the EU, but whose country of origin is China.rcs1000 said:
There are country of origin rules on trade.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Hang on. If there is no tariff on say China > EU and no tariff EU > UK, how does that work (restrictions other than tariffs?)?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
UK exporters to the EU (and vice versa) would have to certify that the origin of the goods (EUR.1).TheWhiteRabbit said:Hang on. If there is no tariff on say China > EU and no tariff EU > UK, how does that work (restrictions other than tariffs?)?
0 -
Don't confuse the homeless with rough sleepers. Nor indeed the people who look like they might be rough sleepers with those actually sleeping rough.nunu said:
Homeless people on the streets ?Sandpit said:Is anyone in the UK genuinely in poverty, by any international measure?
Only having an iPhone 5 when your neighbour has an iPhone 6 isn't poverty.0 -
Can you name some large countries outside of our continent that have a trade deal with the EU in place already, for which we won't be able to negotiate a deal on our own?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
The Polish plumber was a French coinage. I think you should get out of Paris for a while.Paristonda said:
I don't get the impression that intra-Eu free movement is as big a problem in France. I'm not sure what the largest groups are, but don't think they have anything in the same league as our polish population. Their attraction to Le pen will be driven more by problems with Muslim immigration, and even more so, Muslim integration/assimilation in France.HYUFD said:YellowSubmarine said:A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
0 -
Wouldn't benefit from _future_ EU trade deals. Existing EU trade deals will almost certainly continue with independent UK.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
0 -
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.0 -
Our local Leave campaign was excellent but it is now, amicably, reverting to its constituent parts.
The Kippers seem to be scenting (maybe looking for? ) betrayal in various forms and are very protective about Nigel. They do not seem interested in joining the Tories under any circumstances.
The Tory leavers here are all for Boris (as am I).
I had thought his problem might be getting on the ballot, due to lack of Parliamentary nominations. That certainly does not seem a problem for him now.
If Boris is up against a Remain'er, Boris will win.
The Tory membership is much more 'Leave' than Tory voters (who in any event broke roughly 60:40 in favour of Leave).
On a personal note whilst I am pleased to have consistently called the Referendum result correctly (even on days when the polls and betting markets were especially hostile to Leave) I made the mistake of confusing my animosity to the Tory Remain Leaders with animosity to the Conservative Party itself.
I overdid the extent of my estrangement from the Party and the balm of a Leave victory has restored my faith.
I have now renewed my membership and am back in the fold. My wilderness years lasted most of June.
My sense is other disgruntled Leave Tories have also returned are in the process of doing so. (Plato? Hurst Lama?) which should be good news for Boris.
0 -
It is obvious to me that over half the population would go for the EEA option, given full membership has been removed. Two issues: (1) It's up to the rEU to offer it to us and indications are that they probably won't, at least in its current form. (2) EEA is unlikely to work for Britain anyway. It's a balanced option designed to give nobody what they want.Anorak said:
How about taking the view that the 48% who voted remain, plus a rather large chunk of Leavers (the Richard Tyndall and Smithson Jr types) are perfectly happy with free movement.
It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.0 -
No. But obviously we'd have to actually do those deals, and that will take a considerable time, and they might well end up less advantageous. Some might end up as more advantagoeus to us. On balance, once the mess had been sorted out (say 5 to 10 years), I'd have thought it would end up as roughly neutral overall.Philip_Thompson said:Can you name some large countries outside of our continent that have a trade deal with the EU in place already, for which we won't be able to negotiate a deal on our own?
0 -
Heh, sign that Nicky Morgan is a serious contender to be Tory leader
https://twitter.com/NickyMorgan01/status/7481081672430469120 -
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
If it comes to May vs Boris - having thought about her more, I'm backing Boris. He's got cross Party appeal and the Can Do optimism we need.Concanvasser said:Our local Leave campaign was excellent but it is now, amicably, reverting to its constituent parts.
The Kippers seem to be scenting (maybe looking for? ) betrayal in various forms and are very protective about Nigel. They do not seem interested in joining the Tories under any circumstances.
The Tory leavers here are all for Boris (as am I).
I had thought his problem might be getting on the ballot, due to lack of Parliamentary nominations. That certainly does not seem a problem for him now.
If Boris is up against a Remain'er, Boris will win.
The Tory membership is much more 'Leave' than Tory voters (who in any event broke roughly 60:40 in favour of Leave).
On a personal note whilst I am pleased to have consistently called the Referendum result correctly (even on days when the polls and betting markets were especially hostile to Leave) I made the mistake of confusing my animosity to the Tory Remain Leaders with animosity to the Conservative Party itself.
I overdid the extent of my estrangement from the Party and the balm of a Leave victory has restored my faith.
I have now renewed my membership and am back in the fold. My wilderness years lasted most of June.
My sense is other disgruntled Leave Tories have also returned are in the process of doing so. (Plato? Hurst Lama?) which should be good news for Boris.
I've renewed my membership.0 -
While you need to be sceptical of Eurobarometer (in that it's produced by the EU), it does produce figures comparable to those found by more reputable pollsters.taffys said:The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.
I suggest you look at this: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/70150
Page 30 suggests that we (and the Austrians) are very much the outliers on free movement of people.0 -
If they won't negotiate pre-A50 we have a standoff. I'd suggest we get on with negotiating with people who want to, and come back to the EU once we have secured some sort of fallback position. I expect they'll love that.Pulpstar said:EU leaders are going to empty chair us till art 50 is invoked I think. They won't be messed around by our interal party squabbles, and why should they be.
0 -
Needless to say I disagree with both of those claims about EEA membership.FF43 said:
It is obvious to me that over half the population would go for the EEA option, given full membership has been removed. Two issues: (1) It's up to the rEU to offer it to us and indications are that they probably won't, at least in its current form. (2) EEA is unlikely to work for Britain anyway. It's a balanced option designed to give nobody what they want.Anorak said:
How about taking the view that the 48% who voted remain, plus a rather large chunk of Leavers (the Richard Tyndall and Smithson Jr types) are perfectly happy with free movement.
It's a straightforward case that this is more than half the vote and thus perfectly democratic to retain it. Leave Frothers will froth, natch, but there is literally no realistic, negotiated outcome that wouldn't result in that anyway.
Just addressing the first it ignores the fact that we are an independent signatory to the EEA Agreement and that we have already had countries moving in the opposite direction from EFTA to the EU without having to rewrite the treaty. It needed a simple amendment under the Vienna Convention.
Given that it would give the EU basically everything they want including free movement of people I think you are overestimating the opposition anyway.0 -
Cameron's much derided renegotiation kept us out of political union (if we were even in it).MaxPB said:
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
The single market will now cost us more than under Cameron's deal.0 -
Daily Politics
Brexit "needs vision, optimism, energy, drive. I think Boris has got them" @DavidDavisMP tells @Jo_Coburn #bbcdp https://t.co/aaZdiSrBNp0 -
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
Unfortunately there is going to be a strong political incentive for us to sign such one-sided deals.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
Well quite, we're fishing in a whole sea now.Tissue_Price said:
If they won't negotiate pre-A50 we have a standoff. I'd suggest we get on with negotiating with people who want to, and come back to the EU once we have secured some sort of fallback position. I expect they'll love that.Pulpstar said:EU leaders are going to empty chair us till art 50 is invoked I think. They won't be messed around by our interal party squabbles, and why should they be.
0 -
Yes, though it's unfair to say the delays are all down to the EU. Having to defend 28 countries interests obviously contributes to the slow progress.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
Con members simply have not yet realised that Boris is the most pro-EU of all the likely candidates!Concanvasser said:Our local Leave campaign was excellent but it is now, amicably, reverting to its constituent parts.
The Kippers seem to be scenting (maybe looking for? ) betrayal in various forms and are very protective about Nigel. They do not seem interested in joining the Tories under any circumstances.
The Tory leavers here are all for Boris (as am I).
I had thought his problem might be getting on the ballot, due to lack of Parliamentary nominations. That certainly does not seem a problem for him now.
If Boris is up against a Remain'er, Boris will win.
The Tory membership is much more 'Leave' than Tory voters (who in any event broke roughly 60:40 in favour of Leave).
On a personal note whilst I am pleased to have consistently called the Referendum result correctly (even on days when the polls and betting markets were especially hostile to Leave) I made the mistake of confusing my animosity to the Tory Remain Leaders with animosity to the Conservative Party itself.
I overdid the extent of my estrangement from the Party and the balm of a Leave victory has restored my faith.
I have now renewed my membership and am back in the fold. My wilderness years lasted most of June.
My sense is other disgruntled Leave Tories have also returned are in the process of doing so. (Plato? Hurst Lama?) which should be good news for Boris.0 -
It may take some considerable time. If we aim to continue existing deals then it should be possible to do that within two year window.Richard_Nabavi said:
No. But obviously we'd have to actually do those deals, and that will take a considerable time, and they might well end up less advantageous. Some might end up as more advantagoeus to us. On balance, once the mess had been sorted out (say 5 to 10 years), I'd have thought it would end up as roughly neutral overall.Philip_Thompson said:Can you name some large countries outside of our continent that have a trade deal with the EU in place already, for which we won't be able to negotiate a deal on our own?
The key difference is that if you reverse my question there are nations the EU does not have a deal with that we can get deals with now. So once the whole mess has been sorted out I'd have though it could end up as positive overall, there is little downside and a lot of upside longterm.0 -
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
I'm with you there, PlatoSaid, but it's full stop to being a member of the party.PlatoSaid said:
If it comes to May vs Boris - having thought about her more, I'm backing Boris. He's got cross Party appeal and the Can Do optimism we need.Concanvasser said:Our local Leave campaign was excellent but it is now, amicably, reverting to its constituent parts.
The Kippers seem to be scenting (maybe looking for? ) betrayal in various forms and are very protective about Nigel. They do not seem interested in joining the Tories under any circumstances.
The Tory leavers here are all for Boris (as am I).
I had thought his problem might be getting on the ballot, due to lack of Parliamentary nominations. That certainly does not seem a problem for him now.
If Boris is up against a Remain'er, Boris will win.
The Tory membership is much more 'Leave' than Tory voters (who in any event broke roughly 60:40 in favour of Leave).
On a personal note whilst I am pleased to have consistently called the Referendum result correctly (even on days when the polls and betting markets were especially hostile to Leave) I made the mistake of confusing my animosity to the Tory Remain Leaders with animosity to the Conservative Party itself.
I overdid the extent of my estrangement from the Party and the balm of a Leave victory has restored my faith.
I have now renewed my membership and am back in the fold. My wilderness years lasted most of June.
My sense is other disgruntled Leave Tories have also returned are in the process of doing so. (Plato? Hurst Lama?) which should be good news for Boris.
I've renewed my membership.0 -
No it didn't. Full Fact is wrong there - not for the first time.logical_song said:
Cameron's much derided renegotiation kept us out of political union (if we were even in it).MaxPB said:
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
The single market will now cost us more than under Cameron's deal.
0 -
Do you have a link showing that? I'd like to show that to some doubters elsewhere.Richard_Tyndall said:
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
One of the most ridiculous claims by leading Leavers was this idea that the rest of the world was desperate to do free trade deals with us but the EU was stopping it.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/india/Philip_Thompson said:
Do you have a link showing that? I'd like to show that to some doubters elsewhere.Richard_Tyndall said:
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
Oops, perhaps I misinterpreted your question. I've only seen noises off from the Indian parliament about an Anglo-Indian FTA.0 -
Not really related to this directly but I wonder if the French Government might be rather pleased with the end of free movement to the UK given how many of their wealthy nationals have fled across the Channel in the last few years to avoid punitive taxes.rcs1000 said:
While you need to be sceptical of Eurobarometer (in that it's produced by the EU), it does produce figures comparable to those found by more reputable pollsters.taffys said:The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.
I suggest you look at this: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/70150
Page 30 suggests that we (and the Austrians) are very much the outliers on free movement of people.0 -
64% of UK being in favour of free movement looks wrong.rcs1000 said:
While you need to be sceptical of Eurobarometer (in that it's produced by the EU), it does produce figures comparable to those found by more reputable pollsters.taffys said:The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.
I suggest you look at this: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/70150
Page 30 suggests that we (and the Austrians) are very much the outliers on free movement of people.
0 -
It's entirely fair to say it, unless the delays are down to India. The whole point Boris made was precisely that the EU was struggling to make trade deals due to needing 28 nations agreement - saying that it needs 28 nations agreement is no defence for the EU's sclerosis. It is a structural problem.John_M said:
Yes, though it's unfair to say the delays are all down to the EU. Having to defend 28 countries interests obviously contributes to the slow progress.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
To a layman, I don't see how something akin to the Chinese deal wouldn't work ok. I'm very much open to correction.Wanderer said:
Unfortunately there is going to be a strong political incentive for us to sign such one-sided deals.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
Chinese goods already massively undercut British-made (is that still a thing?) goods; having them even cheaper would surely not be a huge issue. Concessions on services in return would work very well for our economy as it's presently set up.0 -
Ed Miliband is calling for Corbyn to go, saying his position is untenable.0
-
I think you mean one of the most ridiculous claims by leading Remainers was that no-one would do any trade deals with us if we left, and this is now being actively disproven. Easy to miss-type.FrankBooth said:
One of the most ridiculous claims by leading Leavers was this idea that the rest of the world was desperate to do free trade deals with us but the EU was stopping it.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
AFP: EU 27 agree 'no single market a la carte' for UK: Tusk0
-
Too early to back a candidate frankly - lets see what the bounders have to say.0
-
I think if you scale all the numbers down by 20%, that's probably fair. I also suspect that it's one of the questions where people are embarassed to say they don't support it.anotherDave said:
64% of UK being in favour of free movement looks wrong.rcs1000 said:
While you need to be sceptical of Eurobarometer (in that it's produced by the EU), it does produce figures comparable to those found by more reputable pollsters.taffys said:The EUs leaders may say they support free movement, but the people of Europe don;t.
Who are Europe's leaders representing when they impose free movement on Britain in return for a trade deal?
Nobody, that who, except their own autocratic regime.
I suggest you look at this: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/70150
Page 30 suggests that we (and the Austrians) are very much the outliers on free movement of people.
Nevertheless, we are an outlier.0 -
RCS seems to be talking cobblers then. How odd, when he is very knowledgeable on this issue.Richard_Tyndall said:
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
Well, that's a mis-characterization too. The EU is inherently slow as a negotiating partner. We've just been discussing the EU-Indian FTA which has been in progress for a good nine years. The argument is that the UK would be nimbler than rEU. That seems entirely un-contentious.FrankBooth said:
One of the most ridiculous claims by leading Leavers was this idea that the rest of the world was desperate to do free trade deals with us but the EU was stopping it.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
But what about Corbyn's position?TheScreamingEagles said:Ed Miliband is calling for Corbyn to go, saying his position is untenable.
I'll get my coat.0 -
I think there are 107 outstanding issues, with about three quarter's being on the EU's side. Although we (the UK) are holding up the process in a couple of areas, such as the question of whether Indian lawyers are allowed to offer conveyancing services into the UK from India.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
but Javid is not even Muslim. Sick.TheScreamingEagles said:Shocked by this, shocked.
Boris Johnson for PM group asks if Tories want a Muslim chancellor OR a ‘British patriot’. Bigotry, much?
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/06/boris-johnson-for-pm-group-asks-if-tories-want-a-muslim-chancellor-or-a-british-patriot/0 -
According to the BBC:Richard_Tyndall said:
No it didn't. Full Fact is wrong there - not for the first time.logical_song said:
Cameron's much derided renegotiation kept us out of political union (if we were even in it).MaxPB said:
Better because we're out of the political union, we keep our right to work and live in the EU, we keep the single market and we get to trade more freely with the rest of the world. It is the best available compromise.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
The single market will now cost us more than under Cameron's deal.
What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-356221050 -
Team Corbyn: Jezza is on the ballot, bring it on.0
-
Don't we already pretty much keep our IP laws in lockstep with the US anyway? TTIP is likely to end up with something very similar too. These IP laws in the 21st century are largely global not continental or national standards.rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.
So I'm not seeing the problem. Sign TPP and get in there today with not just the USA but a dozen nations including China, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and more. That'd be an adrenaline boost to our exports while the EU is still pratting around with TTIP.0 -
Full membership of the EU is the best option in terms of the deal for Britain. The EEA is (almost) objectively a worse deal than EU membership: you get all the things people object to about the EU: remote decision making, pay to play, unlimited immigration but add a very important extra one: a straight loss of sovereignty, which isn't pooled or shared. Britain has to do what it is told but has no input into any of the decision making. The EEA has the downsides of full EU membership plus more and no upside.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
The compelling logic is that we should revert to full EU membership despite last Thursday's vote. This is a question for Leave voters. If you voted on assumptions that didn't turn out, it's quite reasonable to say, actually the original option is the best. I thought it was going to be fine, but now it isn't. Alternatively, they might say, I know what I am doing. Yes, I know it's going to be hard, people will lose their jobs, welfare standards, the possible collapse of the UK etc, but there's a bigger picture and a prize that is worth striving for.
The problem comes with pretence. There is no cost or consequennces but we can do what we like. There will be massively less immigration, or alternatively it was just a "possibility" and not something we were bothered about anyway. There will be all this extra money for the NHS etc etc.0 -
The EFTA-India FTA trade talks are also stalled. And EFTA's usually a lot better at getting deals concluded. (See: Canada)Richard_Tyndall said:
For the last decade. They entered stalemate within a year of starting and have not progressed since. The Indians seem very keen on a deal with the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
Aren't India currently in negotiations with the EU, being held up on the EU's side?rcs1000 said:
We can sign a trade deal with the US almost immediately. However, it would be pretty much a carbon copy of TPP, with us agreeing to abide by US ISDS tribunal rulings, and us being required to keep our intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US.anotherDave said:
The next EU Parliament election is 2019. I'd say not until after that at the earliest. I'd prefer us to be both out of the EU, and to have signed a trade deal with a politically powerful nation (India? China? USA?) before the next election.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't see a call for it. Certainly not until Article 50 has been invoked.MonikerDiCanio said:
Get Johnson in and he must call a GE. That's the ticket.MarqueeMark said:
His being there would be a distraction. Politically wise to keep away.Casino_Royale said:
I also hope he is doing a hell of a lot of work behind the scenes....
I'm sure China would give us a free trade deal like the one they signed with Switzerland. That gave Chinese firms full access to the Swiss financial services market and eliminated tariffs on the vast bulk of Chinese goods going into China. In return, Swiss banks are allowed to own 49% of Chinese banks and aren't allowed to offer financial services to Chinese from off-shore. Oh yes, but the tariff on Swiss watches is being reduced from 11% to 5% over the next six years.
India isn't very big on free trade, generally, so I'm not sure if we'd get anything with them.0 -
I'm amused he used a la carte rather than cherry picking. I think the EU should troll us by insisting all exit negotiations be conducted in French only.TheScreamingEagles said:AFP: EU 27 agree 'no single market a la carte' for UK: Tusk
0 -
Yes but they didn't actually end up with a huge amount of poles. Mostly spanish, italian, and portuguese above all from the EU. There will still be issues on free movement but not sufficient on it's own to take France out of the EU - especially given they have less issues on the sovereignty front than us with it. If the FN come to power the EU will not be their priority, other than for some sabre-rattling, Viktor Orban styleMonikerDiCanio said:
The Polish plumber was a French coinage. I think you should get out of Paris for a while.Paristonda said:
I don't get the impression that intra-Eu free movement is as big a problem in France. I'm not sure what the largest groups are, but don't think they have anything in the same league as our polish population. Their attraction to Le pen will be driven more by problems with Muslim immigration, and even more so, Muslim integration/assimilation in France.HYUFD said:YellowSubmarine said:A deal which allows us to restrict Free Movement and loses our Passporting will be a great result for the EU. Two entirely self inflicted and large blows to our tax base will deter other countries from leaving. Or more accurately the internal political implications as they play out will.
0 -
Some astonishingly awful swing state polling from Ballotpedia. All Clinton leads !!
Florida 51-37 .. Iowa 45-41 .. Michigan 50-33 .. North Carolina 48-38 .. Ohio 46-37 .. Pennsylvania 49-35 .. Virginia 45-38
https://ballotpedia.org/Polling0 -
Yes, I think that's fair. We either sign up to all four freedoms or we don't have any.TheScreamingEagles said:AFP: EU 27 agree 'no single market a la carte' for UK: Tusk
0 -
-
Again almost everything you have said about the EEA there is wrong.FF43 said:
Full membership of the EU is the best option in terms of the deal for Britain. The EEA is (almost) objectively a worse deal than EU membership: you get all the things people object to about the EU: remote decision making, pay to play, unlimited immigration but add a very important extra one: a straight loss of sovereignty, which isn't pooled or shared. Britain has to do what it is told but has no input into any of the decision making. The EEA has the downsides of full EU membership plus more and no upside.logical_song said:
Isn't that similar, but not quite as good as, what we had before the referendum vote.DavidL said:
Agreed. Hope we get on with it soonest.MaxPB said:
Yes, it's the fairest compromise for the 48% and the 52%.Slackbladder said:
I would fully go with EEA, but then i'm not 'hugely' motivated by immigration. Securing a reasonable economic outlook, with opportunities for trade with other countries, whilst disengaging oursevles from any political union would be the best deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. On the other hand, we wouldn't benefit from the EU's trade deals.Slackbladder said:Would EEA allow us to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU?
Free movement of people is well worth that price if it secures free movement of trade and services with it.
The compelling logic is that we should revert to full EU membership despite last Thursday's vote. This is a question for Leave voters. If you voted on assumptions that didn't turn out, it's quite reasonable to say, actually the original option is the best. I thought it was going to be fine, but now it isn't. Alternatively, they might say, I know what I am doing. Yes, I know it's going to be hard, people will lose their jobs, welfare standards, the possible collapse of the UK etc, but there's a bigger picture and a prize that is worth striving for.
The problem comes with pretence. There is no cost or consequennces but we can do what we like. There will be massively less immigration, or alternatively it was just a "possibility" and not something we were bothered about anyway. There will be all this extra money for the NHS etc etc.0
This discussion has been closed.