Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
A change in policy in Brexit. He seems incapable of being positive with our future post June 23rd.
What change in our monetary policy framework does Brexit mandate? Don't remember seeing No QE on the ballot or even of on the side of a bus.
Friday frothers in force tonight.
It is May's interpretation of the vote - that the years of QE and ZIRP have benefited only the rich and led to a growth in inequality and diminution of opportunity (unaffordable housing etc) that have left many people feeling excluded and disillusioned with the economic and political elite. She sees this as underlying much of the dissatisfaction that led to the vote for Brexit - despite none of this actually having much to do with the EU.
Whilst I start from a very different political outlook from Mrs May, in this respect I agree with her and she has my admiration for being the first political leader to (try and) call time on the poisonous central bank policies of the past near-decade.
I'm not talking specifically about QE. Slashing interest rates that are already on the floor sending even while we are growing faster than predicted is not something someone more confident would do. He is acting like a headless chicken.
I happen to think the BOE were a little pre-emptive. And I've never been convinced by Carney. He's made one too many clumsy remarks.
Nevertheless, there is a way to deal with these things and Brexiters baying for his head (alongside, inter alia, Obama, Soubry, Unilever, etc) is not a good sign. Nor are May's remarks. As we see we have a developing rift between PM and BOE Chair.
We are risk destroying years of institution and credibility building. Certainly our reputation for political stability is severely dented.
Thatcher is to blame for much of that. She knew the EU was planning to deepen European integration, most significantly through launching the common currency. Britain reckoned that if the EU went wider, it would make it more difficult to go deeper. She also saw the eastern countries as potentially useful allies against France/Germany. Unfortunately the EU called her bluff and went both wider and deeper, which arguably was the worst of both worlds.
Nevertheless 1989 represented a turning point for the eastern countries and, whilst there has of course been a lot of pain and not everyone has gained, having visited Poland every few years for the last twenty five, the transformation of that country, and its neighbours, is one of the true success stories of our lifetime. Membership of the EU has played a key part in bringing this about.
There is also a deeper and far more dangerous point about the post '89 settlement. We fundamentally misunderstood Russia and both its potential to recover from the shock of the collapse of the Eastern bloc and its decades long concerns about security of its homeland.
Russia and the US both operate on the basis of satellite states around them (some direct vassals as with the former Warsaw pact countries for Russia and some allies as with Canada and Mexico for the US). By offering both EU and NATO membership to the former Eastern bloc countries we have removed entirely the Russian safety net (as they see it) and pushed the boundaries of their 20th century enemies right to their own border.
We have generated a Russian version of the Cuban Missile crisis and in this case they have lost - for now.
My neighbour who is a senior military officer and planner says the British military have been well aware of this for years and that almost all of Russia's actions over the last decade should be seen in this light. By removing a buffer zone we have effectively stoked up the current crisis.
This is in no way meant to support or condone Putin. It is by means of an explanation rather than an excuse. Thatcher, for all her many talents was, as you say, responsible in large part for this and that is not to her credit.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
The Kaiser and Hitler were not known for their introspection. Why should the 3.0 version be any different.
Friday night drinking is fun and a good idea; posting on the Internet during, perhaps less so?
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
I'd agree with all of that. But that doesn't affect the fact that querying the sanctity of freedom of movement is a waste of time.
In any case, as others have said, freedom of movement is generally popular in other EU states. When you have land borders it seems a normal idea.
I think free movement in terms of Schengen is popular, but not in terms of permanent or semi-permanent migration. Especially in countries where there are generous and open benefits systems.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Thatcher is to blame for much of that. She knew the EU was planning to deepen European integration, most significantly through launching the common currency. Britain reckoned that if the EU went wider, it would make it more difficult to go deeper. She also saw the eastern countries as potentially useful allies against France/Germany. Unfortunately the EU called her bluff and went both wider and deeper, which arguably was the worst of both worlds.
Nevertheless 1989 represented a turning point for the eastern countries and, whilst there has of course been a lot of pain and not everyone has gained, having visited Poland every few years for the last twenty five, the transformation of that country, and its neighbours, is one of the true success stories of our lifetime. Membership of the EU has played a key part in bringing this about.
There is also a deeper and far more dangerous point about the post '89 settlement. We fundamentally misunderstood Russia and both its potential to recover from the shock of the collapse of the Eastern bloc and its decades long concerns about security of its homeland.
Russia and the US both operate on the basis of satellite states around them (some direct vassals as with the former Warsaw pact countries for Russia and some allies as with Canada and Mexico for the US). By offering both EU and NATO membership to the former Eastern bloc countries we have removed entirely the Russian safety net (as they see it) and pushed the boundaries of their 20th century enemies right to their own border.
We have generated a Russian version of the Cuban Missile crisis and in this case they have lost - for now.
My neighbour who is a senior military officer and planner says the British military have been well aware of this for years and that almost all of Russia's actions over the last decade should be seen in this light. By removing a buffer zone we have effectively stoked up the current crisis.
This is in no way meant to support or condone Putin. It is by means of an explanation rather than an excuse. Thatcher, for all her many talents was, as you say, responsible in large part for this and that is not to her credit.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
youre just such a wallet worrier
those of us who have been through this many times before say meh and move on
Cyclefree's article is an interesting read, but it just strikes me as being far too late in the day. The four freedoms were, presumably, agreed unanimously by the member states of the EU. If the UK has since become uncomfortable about them, it should have begun working with others to amend the relevant treaties. Changing our mind, flouncing away from the table, and then demanding that the club changes its rules to suit us is not the way to work constructively.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Mio caro Tyson: an interesting comment on my prose style. The majority view - not just on here - tends to the opposite view. But, hey, you're right: writing simply and clearly is a skill. The master is Orwell, IMO.
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
Cyclefree's article is an interesting read, but it just strikes me as being far too late in the day. The four freedoms were, presumably, agreed unanimously by the member states of the EU. If the UK has since become uncomfortable about them, it should have begun working with others to amend the relevant treaties. Changing our mind, flouncing away from the table, and then demanding that the club changes its rules to suit us is not the way to work constructively.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
yeah how old are you ?
How old are you? One of those safely retired Brexiters that don't give a toss about the economy any more?
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
yeah how old are you ?
How old are you? One of those safely retired Brexiters that don't give a toss about the economy any more?
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
I think you've just done a Michelle Obama on me.....when they go low, you go high......
I'm sorry...I usually look out for your posts.....You hit a major nerve. I know that the UK are attracting the best of the EU. I know because I married one... a beautiful, intelligent Italian.
She has been a massive loss to Italy which would need her far more than the UK..... yet she continues to work for an English based firm, paying her taxes to the UK.
Without the EU we wouldn't have met. I tell you European countries do not want to get rid of their young emmigrants....educated, articulate, brave, willing to learn languages and to work without ego.
My wife took her first job as a shelf stacker for a Library in Preston...within 15 years she was Head of Department for one of the World's Leading Publishers with her own office in New York. Do you really want to shut the door on someone like that?
Cyclefree's article is an interesting read, but it just strikes me as being far too late in the day. The four freedoms were, presumably, agreed unanimously by the member states of the EU. If the UK has since become uncomfortable about them, it should have begun working with others to amend the relevant treaties. Changing our mind, flouncing away from the table, and then demanding that the club changes its rules to suit us is not the way to work constructively.
Indeed, Britain has long been the EU's very own special snowflake.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
The Kaiser and Hitler were not known for their introspection. Why should the 3.0 version be any different.
Friday night drinking is fun and a good idea; posting on the Internet during, perhaps less so?
Stone cold sober and making a serious point. There is a tendency to dreadful superior arrogance among European elites, far worse than anything here.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
The Kaiser and Hitler were not known for their introspection. Why should the 3.0 version be any different.
Friday night drinking is fun and a good idea; posting on the Internet during, perhaps less so?
Stone cold sober and making a serious point. There is a tendency to dreadful superior arrogance among European elites, far worse than anything here.
Whether true or not, your historical comparison was crass (being polite) and adds nothing to the debate. If I were you I would admit to a few pints, whether you have had them or not.
Thatcher is to blame for much of that. She knew the EU was planning to deepen European integration, most significantly through launching the common currency. Britain reckoned that if the EU went wider, it would make it more difficult to go deeper. She also saw the eastern countries as potentially useful allies against France/Germany. Unfortunately the EU called her bluff and went both wider and deeper, which arguably was the worst of both worlds.
Nevertheless 1989 represented a turning point for the eastern countries and, whilst there has of course been a lot of pain and not everyone has gained, having visited Poland every few years for the last twenty five, the transformation of that country, and its neighbours, is one of the true success stories of our lifetime. Membership of the EU has played a key part in bringing this about.
There is also a deeper and far more dangerous point about the post '89 settlement. We fundamentally misunderstood Russia and both its potential to recover from the shock of the collapse of the Eastern bloc and its decades long concerns about security of its homeland.
Russia and the US both operate on the basis of satellite states around them (some direct vassals as with the former Warsaw pact countries for Russia and some allies as with Canada and Mexico for the US). By offering both EU and NATO membership to the former Eastern bloc countries we have removed entirely the Russian safety net (as they see it) and pushed the boundaries of their 20th century enemies right to their own border.
We have generated a Russian version of the Cuban Missile crisis and in this case they have lost - for now.
My neighbour who is a senior military officer and planner says the British military have been well aware of this for years and that almost all of Russia's actions over the last decade should be seen in this light. By removing a buffer zone we have effectively stoked up the current crisis.
This is in no way meant to support or condone Putin. It is by means of an explanation rather than an excuse. Thatcher, for all her many talents was, as you say, responsible in large part for this and that is not to her credit.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
Interesting, particularly as it's the opposite of all the analysis of the likely outcome that I have seen so far.
Theresa May's naming of a deadline to invoke Article 50 makes more sense if she expected to lose this case as it creates more space for her in the long run while helping her pose as a true believer in Brexit.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
yeah how old are you ?
How old are you? One of those safely retired Brexiters that don't give a toss about the economy any more?
55 , I work,and have a business
now how old are you ?
38. I do remember life before an independent Bank of England. Not great to have Chancellors running monetary policy, which is why it's rather fallen out of fashion.
Good. He was quite happy to sing the government's tune until it's policy changed. We need a Bank chief who has confidence in our current trajectory.
Supposed to be independent, no? Provides confidence in our monetary framework and all that.
Oh well, another traitor for the bonfire.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
Losing the Governor of the BoE in such a way (if it happens) would spook the markets. May is showing her inexperience here.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Well exactly. You said it better than me. May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
yeah how old are you ?
How old are you? One of those safely retired Brexiters that don't give a toss about the economy any more?
55 , I work,and have a business
now how old are you ?
38. I do remember life before an independent Bank of England. Not great to have Chancellors running monetary policy, which is why it's rather fallen out of fashion.
Although ironically it's simply led to different kinds of mistakes in monetary policy that are arguably much worse because they allow politicians to abdicate responsibility.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
The EU is way past caring what Britain thinks. It hasn't come across the idea of an exit interview.
Isn't the lack of introspection one of the EU's biggest failings though? Maybe they don't care what we think in the UK, but it leaves them open to other countries taking a step back.
I'd agree with all of that. But that doesn't affect the fact that querying the sanctity of freedom of movement is a waste of time.
In any case, as others have said, freedom of movement is generally popular in other EU states. When you have land borders it seems a normal idea.
That's a pragmatic approach. It's why Shengen makes sense in much of Continental Europe.
But the way some EU politicians talk about FoM, you'd think it was up there with the Holy Trinity as something never to be questioned.
This is the same thinking that made British conservatives think they were going to renegotiate the EU into a different thing. They don't like freedom of movement, and they tell each other about occasional straws in the wind like temporary reimpositions of border controls (they don't mention it when they're lifted) or opposition to Syrian immigrants to tell themselves the rest of Europe doesn't want it either.
Freedom to move around reliably and predictably without a whimsical bureaucratic process in the middle is useful, popular and good for the economy. It's particularly important when you have a single currency. They're not going to give it up.
The author is one of the instigators of the case. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong but it should be noted, if only because the wish can be the father to the thought.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
Agree. The supremacy of parliament was something I thought had been settled in the seventeenth century. Astounded that this has been challenged by Queen Theresa.
The author is one of the instigators of the case. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong but it should be noted, if only because the wish can be the father to the thought.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
Agree. The supremacy of parliament was something I thought had been settled in the seventeenth century. Astounded that this has been challenged by Queen Theresa.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but the last sentence in the article is simply nonsense. Parsed, as you say, it just means that he doesn't like the idea of PMs wielding executive power.
I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected but my hunch is that at a time when the currency markets are already febrile, the government provoking a very public row with the Bank of England to the point of securing the governor's resignation might just possibly cause a few minor ripples.
Could he be "let go" over Christmas while the markets are closed?
If there's no majority in the EC, then the HoR chooses from the top three but the Senate chooses from the top two, so McMullin's running-mate Mindy Finn shouldn't get too excited. If the HoR can't decide by inauguration day, and assuming the Senate has picked a VP, then the VP will become president.
And Betfair will pay out on that person
The Senate will surely be able to choose a VP, given that they will have only two candidates to choose from and while they have an even number of members, Joe Biden would have a casting vote.
A combination of a close election, McMullin winning Utah and an indecisive HoR could happen. One could say that letting the Senate-chosen VP take the presidency would be one of the options for the HoR. Maybe Pence and Kaine are good value at 295 and 980.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
This is the same thinking that made British conservatives think they were going to renegotiate the EU into a different thing. They don't like freedom of movement, and they tell each other about occasional straws in the wind like temporary reimpositions of border controls (they don't mention it when they're lifted) or opposition to Syrian immigrants to tell themselves the rest of Europe doesn't want it either.
Freedom to move around reliably and predictably without a whimsical bureaucratic process in the middle is useful, popular and good for the economy. It's particularly important when you have a single currency. They're not going to give it up.
There is also a lot of cross border commuting in the EU too, with Czechs and Poles commuting weekly to Germany, French to Belgium etc.
Freedom of movement is about much more than migration, though there are significant diaspora such as over a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain. There is a very large Portuguese population in both Paris and Luxembourg etc etc.
Freedom of movement to me is the only one of the four freedoms that really apply to the ordinary citizen, the other freedoms are the freedoms of capitalists and their money.
@DharshiniDavid: @bankofengland Carney says will tolerate an inflation overshoot , implies may bend remit to prioritise growth/ jobs & so delay any rate rise
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
This is the same thinking that made British conservatives think they were going to renegotiate the EU into a different thing. They don't like freedom of movement, and they tell each other about occasional straws in the wind like temporary reimpositions of border controls (they don't mention it when they're lifted) or opposition to Syrian immigrants to tell themselves the rest of Europe doesn't want it either.
Freedom to move around reliably and predictably without a whimsical bureaucratic process in the middle is useful, popular and good for the economy. It's particularly important when you have a single currency. They're not going to give it up.
I think we could start a Brexit delusion bingo here.
Each time one of a numbered set of Brexit delusions is gravely cited as to why everything's going swimmingly, those at home can cross then off your list. A full set and you can shout Bingo.
1. The EU will give up the principe of FOM 2. People in the EU hate FOM and will force their governments to give it up. 3. The EU is an economic basket case and will collapse before long 4. "They" have more to lose because of our terms of trade 5. BMW will force Merkel to do a deal 6. There is one single (enemy) force and opinion called "the EU"
Etc etc
All would be rather amusing except that this delusional thinking actually hampers the sober appraisal of reality we need now to negotiate the best deal.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
I think you've just done a Michelle Obama on me.....when they go low, you go high......
I'm sorry...I usually look out for your posts.....You hit a major nerve. I know that the UK are attracting the best of the EU. I know because I married one... a beautiful, intelligent Italian.
She has been a massive loss to Italy which would need her far more than the UK..... yet she continues to work for an English based firm, paying her taxes to the UK.
Without the EU we wouldn't have met. I tell you European countries do not want to get rid of their young emmigrants....educated, articulate, brave, willing to learn languages and to work without ego.
My wife took her first job as a shelf stacker for a Library in Preston...within 15 years she was Head of Department for one of the World's Leading Publishers with her own office in New York. Do you really want to shut the door on someone like that?
I don't. I'm half-Italian. Italian is my mother tongue. I am a child of immigrants.
I just think that inflexibility is the wrong approach to take to immigration, precisely because it is about human hopes and fears, about our home, about the families and communities we make and those we leave behind.
There is a chilliness about the EU's approach and a lack of generosity and kindness about the way some in Britain are blaming foreigners which troubles me.
Independent within the framework that the government sets absolutely. If he can't handle a change in government policy competently then we need someone else who can.
What change in policy?
If May wants to change the framework she should do so by recourse to appropriate statutory measures. A throwaway line in a speech is reckless, incompetent or both.
A change in policy in Brexit. He seems incapable of being positive with our future post June 23rd.
What change in our monetary policy framework does Brexit mandate? Don't remember seeing No QE on the ballot or even of on the side of a bus.
Friday frothers in force tonight.
It is May's interpretation of the vote - that the years of QE and ZIRP have benefited only the rich and led to a growth in inequality and diminution of opportunity (unaffordable housing etc) that have left many people feeling excluded and disillusioned with the economic and political elite. She sees this as underlying much of the dissatisfaction that led to the vote for Brexit - despite none of this actually having much to do with the EU.
Whilst I start from a very different political outlook from Mrs May, in this respect I agree with her and she has my admiration for being the first political leader to (try and) call time on the poisonous central bank policies of the past near-decade.
I also find it interesting that May has signalled she understands how the fallout from the credit boom and subsequent crunch has led to the current inequality problems we face. Like many, I've been distinctly unimpressed with how QE has been used to keep the finance industry gravy train rolling and fuel an asset boom.
What I don't get is what a Conservative Government will do to address these problems? I've seen very little discussion of practical solutions on here.
The Trump thing is parallel. Plato et al. are cheering the torches being put up to the haystack, but there's no indication as far as I can see of what the Donald would actually do with the presidency that would improve the lot of the good people of flyover America?
This is the same thinking that made British conservatives think they were going to renegotiate the EU into a different thing. They don't like freedom of movement, and they tell each other about occasional straws in the wind like temporary reimpositions of border controls (they don't mention it when they're lifted) or opposition to Syrian immigrants to tell themselves the rest of Europe doesn't want it either.
Freedom to move around reliably and predictably without a whimsical bureaucratic process in the middle is useful, popular and good for the economy. It's particularly important when you have a single currency. They're not going to give it up.
And it works fine if you're a Dutch commuter from Breda going to work in Antwerp, or a German nipping over to France to buy cheese in a French Sunday market. It doesn't work if a Romanian border guard on a pittance in given a thick brown envelope by people traffickers to look the other way, let alone if hundreds of thousands turn up in a Voelkerwaenderung.
From a British perspective, it's all a bit irrelevant as crossing the "border" involves a fairly big faff regardless ( Ulster aside ), as you have to get on a plane, boat, or be fired though a long tunnel parked on a train. Another example of our geography dictating difference.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
Free movement makes Europe economically richer, as free trade generally does, by allowing more efficient use of resources. Free movement makes Europe culturally richer, by encouraging interaction. And finally, that I think it is generally better for people to have more freedom rather than less.
I'd also suggest that free movement of capital and not people risks further advantaging capital at the expense of people.
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
I still struggle to believe this guy was a brain surgeon.....one thing being a wide boy wheeler dealer that ends up making a load of money and might have been right place right time more than brains, but a f##king brain surgeon....a brain surgeon....
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
But the case is to give Parliament a vote on the enacting of Article 50. Now there is no choice involved in that in the way you claim. We either invoke Article 50 or we do not. If we do not then we remain in the EU and you have ignored the result of the referendum.
Now I know that is the result you want but it is not in accordance with what you have just written. You cannot have it both ways. Either we invoke A50 and leave the EU or we do not invoke it and we do not leave.
The debate in Parliament is far more interesting and is saying that Parliament should have a say in the final settlement. That is something I agree with - as long as they understand that if they do not support the final agreement then we will still be leaving anyway and it will be the hardest of hard Brexits.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Cyclefree is right (as so often). The EU argument is, as she says - brittle.
Essentially, it's "we can't give you free trade without freedom of movement, because we're scared stiff others will think "that's a great idea", and then there would we be?". Well in my view in a more democratically responsive, happier, and looser EU. And there lies the rub, the EU powers that be aren't interested in a democratically responsive, or happier EU, if it means "looser". In a nutshell that's why I voted to leave. We're on a the way to a USE and nothing as trivial as the will of the people(s) is going to be allowed to get in the way, no matter if they lose the UK, (in fairness I doubt the Junckers of this world care), or youth unemployment in Greece is 50% (or whatever it is).
Brexit, and its subset of immigration concerns, is merely the symptom of the fault line we've been dodging for 50 years: is it about economics with political add ons, as we've kidded ourselves, or a political one way street with economic add ons, as most of the Continent has believed?
If we don't get out, we're done for as a nation state, and without the express consent of European people's, all headed for utter disaster as resentment builds. That's why, for me, money is no object. It's about my place in the world and sense of self, and why I'm intensely comfortable with my vote, even though I accept it won't be a bed of roses, especially if the EU plays silly buggers with false "principles".
An interview with a member of Jeb's opposition research team.
That says the square root of f##k all. Basically we knew about Howard Stern and...the GOP responsible didn't do their job properly, not just on the women related stuff, but the Trump Foundation, his tax situation, etc etc etc.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
I voted Remain and do not regret my vote. I am now in favour of hard Brexit. The people must get what they voted for: independence from the Brussels courts and beaurocracy, complete control over migration, no funding of the Single Market etc. That means Hard Brexit.
I think that the vote has to run its course before we can re-engage in a constructive manner. I know divorcees that have become friends again afterwards, but they are universally bitter in the break up. I also believe that Brexit will not cure the ills of globalisation, indeed it may well make them more acute. Nonetheless it still needs to happen.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
I would like some grown ups in charge of Brexit. I remain to be convinced that we have or will get this.
Cyclefree is right (as so often). The EU argument is, as she says - brittle.
Essentially, it's "we can't give you free trade without freedom of movement, because we're scared stiff others will think "that's a great idea", and then there would we be?". Well in my view in a more democratically responsive, happier, and looser EU. And there lies the rub, the EU powers that be aren't interested in a democratically responsive, or happier EU, if it means "looser". In a nutshell that's why I voted to leave. We're on a the way to a USE and nothing as trivial as the will of the people(s) is going to be allowed to get in the way, no matter if they lose the UK, (in fairness I doubt the Junckers of this world care), or youth unemployment in Greece is 50% (or whatever it is).
Brexit, and its subset of immigration concerns, is merely the symptom of the fault line we've been dodging for 50 years: is it about economics with political add ons, as we've kidded ourselves, or a political one way street with economic add ons, as most of the Continent has believed?
If we don't get out, we're done for as a nation state, and without the express consent of European people's, all headed for utter disaster as resentment builds. That's why, for me, money is no object. It's about my place in the world and sense of self, and why I'm intensely comfortable with my vote, even though I accept it won't be a bed of roses, especially if the EU plays silly buggers with false "principles".
That is correct. Now, arguably we should just accept that the game is up. The UK is done for, and we're better off as an important province in a new country called Europe. There's nothing ignoble about such an argument.
But, most British people don't accept that argument. So, we have to work from the assumption that this country wishes to remain independent.
Carson appears to be the perfect Trump surrogate - at least in reflecting his attitudes towards women.
Katy Kay by any...oh yes it is..a woman who made a big deal of fatty fatty bum bum-ness of Trump and then the next week wrote a piece all about Trump and alike fat shaming women.
A combination of a close election, McMullin winning Utah and an indecisive HoR could happen. One could say that letting the Senate-chosen VP take the presidency would be one of the options for the HoR. Maybe Pence and Kaine are good value at 295 and 980.
The more I think about this, yes, an R-controlled HoR faced with a choice of Clinton, Trump, or McMullin, or handing the presidency to VP Pence chosen by an R-controlled Senate, might go for Pence, assuming they can get their act together as craftily as if they were Tory MPs voting in a Tory leadership election. Which probably means that those who stand to gain from a Pence presidency should be rooting for the Mormon candidate in the Mormon-majority state of Utah.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
I voted Remain and do not regret my vote. I am now in favour of hard Brexit. The people must get what they voted for: independence from the Brussels courts and beaurocracy, complete control over migration, no funding of the Single Market etc. That means Hard Brexit.
I think that the vote has to run its course before we can re-engage in a constructive manner. I know divorcees that have become friends again afterwards, but they are universally bitter in the break up. I also believe that Brexit will not cure the ills of globalisation, indeed it may well make them more acute. Nonetheless it still needs to happen.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
[Snipped]
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
But the case is to give Parliament a vote on the enacting of Article 50. Now there is no choice involved in that in the way you claim. We either invoke Article 50 or we do not. If we do not then we remain in the EU and you have ignored the result of the referendum.
Now I know that is the result you want but it is not in accordance with what you have just written. You cannot have it both ways. Either we invoke A50 and leave the EU or we do not invoke it and we do not leave.
The debate in Parliament is far more interesting and is saying that Parliament should have a say in the final settlement. That is something I agree with - as long as they understand that if they do not support the final agreement then we will still be leaving anyway and it will be the hardest of hard Brexits.
Oh..... my mistake......I thought the Court case was about Parliament dictating the terms of Brexit, not whether it was enabled in the first place; something that was decided by the referendum (albeit an advisory referendum).
It shows maybe how complicated this has all become, or it shows that my limited IQ of 80 is finding this all much too difficult to process.
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
I voted Remain and do not regret my vote. I am now in favour of hard Brexit. The people must get what they voted for: independence from the Brussels courts and beaurocracy, complete control over migration, no funding of the Single Market etc. That means Hard Brexit.
I think that the vote has to run its course before we can re-engage in a constructive manner. I know divorcees that have become friends again afterwards, but they are universally bitter in the break up. I also believe that Brexit will not cure the ills of globalisation, indeed it may well make them more acute. Nonetheless it still needs to happen.
I agree very much that, if we are to get a good deal, we may have to have a period without a deal to allow time for cooler heads to prevail. I would much rather that, then for the UK to negotiate a bad deal from a position of weakness or time constraint.
Bloody hell, that is like the Telegraph declaring that voters in Richmond should vote Labour.
Quite a few conservative papers have endorsed her. I think they feel comfortable doing so because the Clinton's aren't that left wing and she is hawkish. (Which hurts her with Bernie supporters).
Carson appears to be the perfect Trump surrogate - at least in reflecting his attitudes towards women.
Katy Kay by any...oh yes it is..a woman who made a big deal of fatty fatty bum bum-ness of Trump and then the next week wrote a piece all about Trump and alike fat shaming women.
Carson appears to be the perfect Trump surrogate - at least in reflecting his attitudes towards women.
Katy Kay by any...oh yes it is..a woman who made a big deal of fatty fatty bum bum-ness of Trump and then the next week wrote a piece all about Trump and alike fat shaming women.
Are you auditioning to replace Carson ?
I hope you don't think my criticism of Katy Kay equals support for Trump.
Devolved parliaments within member countries of the EU can choose to accept or reject extranational trade deals? What's one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world capable of?
It's always good to read Cyclefree's elegant prose. But I'm not sure that Brexiteers understand the position in the rest of the EU. They see the departure of Britain with mingled regret and exasperation. Their primary objective is to limit the amount of concessions needed to make the new arrangement work adequately.
Their interest in Britain suggesting new ways for them to organise things is zero, just as if your partner says she'll divorce you, and by the way, what about moving the kitchen table? We would be quite literally wasting our time and it would confirm the impression that we have no serious idea of what we actually want to do in the realm of practical possibilities.
Don't, please, make assumptions about how I voted. I've never revealed my vote - and won't. I write threads which I hope will stimulate discussion by others (rather than to persuade people to my point of view), to make points that I think haven't been made and, partly, to help me work out in my own mind what I do think about some topic.
It's harder than it looks - as il signore Tyson has kindly pointed out!
Yes, I've not made an assumption about how you voted. But as I understand your current position, you feel that, now the vote has passed, we should leave - a view shared by quite a few Remainers. That's what I mean by Brexiteers - perhaps I should have defined it, though.
I would like some grown ups in charge of Brexit. I remain to be convinced that we have or will get this.
The government hasn't got a clue and is making it up as it goes. Once you realise and accept that, the way Brexit is unfolding makes perfect sense.
It also puts some things into perspective. They say that Commons scrutiny will give away our negotiating strategy.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
An interview with a member of Jeb's opposition research team.
That says the square root of f##k all. Basically we knew about Howard Stern and...the GOP responsible didn't do their job properly, not just on the women related stuff, but the Trump Foundation, his tax situation, etc etc etc.
I've read another report that said in the primaries other candidates focused group a bunch of negative stuff against Trump and it didn't move the dial at all so they dropped it.
Bloody hell, that is like the Telegraph declaring that voters in Richmond should vote Labour.
Quite a few conservative papers have endorsed her. I think they feel comfortable doing so because the Clinton's aren't that left wing and she is hawkish. (Which hurts her with Bernie supporters).
Plus the inevitable attempt at impeaching her will be a unifying moment for a fractured-looking GOP.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
[Snipped]
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
And what is the problem with that, exactly?
Such a resurgence of protectionism and beggar thy neighbour policies would end up making everyone poorer
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Mio caro Tyson: an interesting comment on my prose style. The majority view - not just on here - tends to the opposite view. But, hey, you're right: writing simply and clearly is a skill. The master is Orwell, IMO.
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
Just as importantly, it relieves the pressure to actually change things at home. Export unemployment, close your eyes and its all fine...
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
Free movement makes Europe economically richer, as free trade generally does, by allowing more efficient use of resources. Free movement makes Europe culturally richer, by encouraging interaction. And finally, that I think it is generally better for people to have more freedom rather than less.
I'd also suggest that free movement of capital and not people risks further advantaging capital at the expense of people.
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
While you have given strong arguments for the benefits of freedom of movement (all of which I agree with - I am an immigrant in the US - but all of which I think you can still achieve with a modicum of limits on freedom of movement), you still have not answered why freedom of movement is inseparable from a single market of goods, or of goods and services.
Again, you have simply asserted that it is the case ("the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market").
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Mio caro Tyson: an interesting comment on my prose style. The majority view - not just on here - tends to the opposite view. But, hey, you're right: writing simply and clearly is a skill. The master is Orwell, IMO.
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
Just as importantly, it relieves the pressure to actually change things at home. Export unemployment, close your eyes and its all fine...
Hmmmm, surely countries that don't take care of their people lose them. It's like companies: if you need not fear losing your best staff, you are unlikely to treat them well.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Comments
Whilst I start from a very different political outlook from Mrs May, in this respect I agree with her and she has my admiration for being the first political leader to (try and) call time on the poisonous central bank policies of the past near-decade.
Nevertheless, there is a way to deal with these things and Brexiters baying for his head (alongside, inter alia, Obama, Soubry, Unilever, etc) is not a good sign. Nor are May's remarks. As we see we have a developing rift between PM and BOE Chair.
We are risk destroying years of institution and credibility building. Certainly our reputation for political stability is severely dented.
Russia and the US both operate on the basis of satellite states around them (some direct vassals as with the former Warsaw pact countries for Russia and some allies as with Canada and Mexico for the US). By offering both EU and NATO membership to the former Eastern bloc countries we have removed entirely the Russian safety net (as they see it) and pushed the boundaries of their 20th century enemies right to their own border.
We have generated a Russian version of the Cuban Missile crisis and in this case they have lost - for now.
My neighbour who is a senior military officer and planner says the British military have been well aware of this for years and that almost all of Russia's actions over the last decade should be seen in this light. By removing a buffer zone we have effectively stoked up the current crisis.
This is in no way meant to support or condone Putin. It is by means of an explanation rather than an excuse. Thatcher, for all her many talents was, as you say, responsible in large part for this and that is not to her credit.
May might even be right about QE. But we really don't need to pull down another pillar in the temple right now.
those of us who have been through this many times before say meh and move on
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
too late now
now how old are you ?
I'm sorry...I usually look out for your posts.....You hit a major nerve. I know that the UK are attracting the best of the EU. I know because I married one... a beautiful, intelligent Italian.
She has been a massive loss to Italy which would need her far more than the UK..... yet she continues to work for an English based firm, paying her taxes to the UK.
Without the EU we wouldn't have met. I tell you European countries do not want to get rid of their young emmigrants....educated, articulate, brave, willing to learn languages and to work without ego.
My wife took her first job as a shelf stacker for a Library in Preston...within 15 years she was Head of Department for one of the World's Leading Publishers with her own office in New York. Do you really want to shut the door on someone like that?
OH - Clinton 44 .. Trump 39 - Sample 1,046
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 39 - Sample 1,039
IA - Clinton 42 .. Trump 36 - Sample 813
IN - Clinton 36 .. Trump 45 - Sample 874
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Battleground-Ohio-Methodology.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Battleground-Pennsylvania-Methodology.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Battleground-Indiana-Methodology.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Battleground-Iowa-Methodology.pdf
hardly new
Con 42% (+3)
Lab 28% (-2)
UKIP 11% (-2)
LD 9% (+1)
Others 10% (+1)
Worried about voter intimidation on election day now.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
But the way some EU politicians talk about FoM, you'd think it was up there with the Holy Trinity as something never to be questioned.
This is the same thinking that made British conservatives think they were going to renegotiate the EU into a different thing. They don't like freedom of movement, and they tell each other about occasional straws in the wind like temporary reimpositions of border controls (they don't mention it when they're lifted) or opposition to Syrian immigrants to tell themselves the rest of Europe doesn't want it either.
Freedom to move around reliably and predictably without a whimsical bureaucratic process in the middle is useful, popular and good for the economy. It's particularly important when you have a single currency. They're not going to give it up.
If there's no majority in the EC, then the HoR chooses from the top three but the Senate chooses from the top two, so McMullin's running-mate Mindy Finn shouldn't get too excited. If the HoR can't decide by inauguration day, and assuming the Senate has picked a VP, then the VP will become president.
And Betfair will pay out on that person
The Senate will surely be able to choose a VP, given that they will have only two candidates to choose from and while they have an even number of members, Joe Biden would have a casting vote.
A combination of a close election, McMullin winning Utah and an indecisive HoR could happen. One could say that letting the Senate-chosen VP take the presidency would be one of the options for the HoR. Maybe Pence and Kaine are good value at 295 and 980.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
Freedom of movement is about much more than migration, though there are significant diaspora such as over a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain. There is a very large Portuguese population in both Paris and Luxembourg etc etc.
Freedom of movement to me is the only one of the four freedoms that really apply to the ordinary citizen, the other freedoms are the freedoms of capitalists and their money.
Each time one of a numbered set of Brexit delusions is gravely cited as to why everything's going swimmingly, those at home can cross then off your list. A full set and you can shout Bingo.
1. The EU will give up the principe of FOM
2. People in the EU hate FOM and will force their governments to give it up.
3. The EU is an economic basket case and will collapse before long
4. "They" have more to lose because of our terms of trade
5. BMW will force Merkel to do a deal
6. There is one single (enemy) force and opinion called "the EU"
Etc etc
All would be rather amusing except that this delusional thinking actually hampers the sober appraisal of reality we need now to negotiate the best deal.
I just think that inflexibility is the wrong approach to take to immigration, precisely because it is about human hopes and fears, about our home, about the families and communities we make and those we leave behind.
There is a chilliness about the EU's approach and a lack of generosity and kindness about the way some in Britain are blaming foreigners which troubles me.
E adesso, amore mio, buona notte.
Whilst I start from a very different political outlook from Mrs May, in this respect I agree with her and she has my admiration for being the first political leader to (try and) call time on the poisonous central bank policies of the past near-decade.
I also find it interesting that May has signalled she understands how the fallout from the credit boom and subsequent crunch has led to the current inequality problems we face. Like many, I've been distinctly unimpressed with how QE has been used to keep the finance industry gravy train rolling and fuel an asset boom.
What I don't get is what a Conservative Government will do to address these problems? I've seen very little discussion of practical solutions on here.
The Trump thing is parallel. Plato et al. are cheering the torches being put up to the haystack, but there's no indication as far as I can see of what the Donald would actually do with the presidency that would improve the lot of the good people of flyover America?
From a British perspective, it's all a bit irrelevant as crossing the "border" involves a fairly big faff regardless ( Ulster aside ), as you have to get on a plane, boat, or be fired though a long tunnel parked on a train. Another example of our geography dictating difference.
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
Free movement makes Europe economically richer, as free trade generally does, by allowing more efficient use of resources.
Free movement makes Europe culturally richer, by encouraging interaction.
And finally, that I think it is generally better for people to have more freedom rather than less.
I'd also suggest that free movement of capital and not people risks further advantaging capital at the expense of people.
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3838520/It-doesn-t-matter-lying-not-matters-train-going-cliff-Dr-Ben-Carson-tries-steer-election-talk-issues-not-Trump-sex-claims.html
Now I know that is the result you want but it is not in accordance with what you have just written. You cannot have it both ways. Either we invoke A50 and leave the EU or we do not invoke it and we do not leave.
The debate in Parliament is far more interesting and is saying that Parliament should have a say in the final settlement. That is something I agree with - as long as they understand that if they do not support the final agreement then we will still be leaving anyway and it will be the hardest of hard Brexits.
An interview with a member of Jeb's opposition research team.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37661794
Carson appears to be the perfect Trump surrogate - at least in reflecting his attitudes towards women.
I think that the vote has to run its course before we can re-engage in a constructive manner. I know divorcees that have become friends again afterwards, but they are universally bitter in the break up. I also believe that Brexit will not cure the ills of globalisation, indeed it may well make them more acute. Nonetheless it still needs to happen.
But, most British people don't accept that argument. So, we have to work from the assumption that this country wishes to remain independent.
It shows maybe how complicated this has all become, or it shows that my limited IQ of 80 is finding this all much too difficult to process.
Its only the Football that I follow, and occasionally the Rugby League
It also puts some things into perspective. They say that Commons scrutiny will give away our negotiating strategy.
It can't.
There isn't one.
PENCE: Cool, can't wait
TRUMP (at rally): THEY'RE ALL UGGOS
PENCE: Wait what
While you have given strong arguments for the benefits of freedom of movement (all of which I agree with - I am an immigrant in the US - but all of which I think you can still achieve with a modicum of limits on freedom of movement), you still have not answered why freedom of movement is inseparable from a single market of goods, or of goods and services.
Again, you have simply asserted that it is the case ("the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market").
But I think the scariest word is "chaos".
And that looks to be what we have now.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.