(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
Nice scenario; no evidence it will happen. Faith-based.
We have an authoritarian government who will not be keen to roll back regulation at the perceived expense of workers rights, and an opposition that would probably increase regulation ten-fold.
There is a strong possibility that rEU will pinch a large part of our services sector. With growing centres in India, and existing centres elsewhere (HK, Singapore - both of which will be after our lunch), so that's unlikely to go according to (your) plan.
And trade deals will take 4 years minimum to get up and running, with no guarantee of success, or that they'll be better that the ones the rEU will sign.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ .
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
Um, no. There is an economic case for Brexit, in the medium-long term. It's just you don't agree with it.
Open Europe, the IEA and Capital Economics have all made it.
Open Europe predicted a permanent loss of GDP in the event of a hard Brexit, and the IEA and Capital Economics arguments are predicated on the believe that the EU itself will utterly fail.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
We have an authoritarian government who will not be keen to roll back regulation at the perceived expense of workers rights, and an opposition that would probably increase regulation ten-fold.
There is a strong possibility that rEU will pinch a large part of our services sector. With growing centres in India, and existing centres elsewhere (HK, Singapore - both of which will be after our lunch), so that's unlikely to go according to (your) plan.
And trade deals will take 4 years minimum to get up and running, with no guarantee of success, or that they'll be better that the ones the rEU will sign.
Fabricated nightmare scenario, no evidence it will happen. Confirmation bias-based.
Not-a-headbanger = New Zealand is a stunning success story because it's got semi-skimmed.
I have a new rule, any post containing the word "Headbanger", "Swivel-eyed" and other such nonsense terms of abuse is immediately skipped over. Posters that consistently use such terms of abuse are put on permanent ignore because they clearly have no reasonable argument to make. Makes reading PB very much faster with no loss of useful content.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
You lost that argument on 23rd June.
We abandoned the political structures because the EU presumed to legislate for us as a nascent confederal union that was undemocratic, arrogant and inflexible, and growing ever more so.
We will do just fine outside. And I believe our decision will be vindicated.
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
No more so than you have. I laid out my arguments perfectly clearly in my blog before the referendum, and I stand by them.
I do not believe that is any serious barrier to our long-term prosperity as a nation, and the models that show there might be work off base assumptions of the status-quo as it is now.
If we had joined the euro, and then wanted to leave, you could have created an even stronger argument to trade disruption to leaving due to reimposed currency barriers, disruption to supply chains, transaction charges and exchange rate risk. But the political freedom of having our own currency over the last 8 years has undoubtedly been of economic benefit.
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
With respect, the "when I have" bit doesn't really fly when you then come up with a batch of new points.
'Better global trading networks' - but we aren't really hampered now; certainly Germany isn't 'International services hub' - how or why (does Brexit make this happen)? 'Less protectionalism' - everyone is talking about a growth in protectionalism and the end of free trade, Brexit being seen as a significant step in that direction 'Flexible responsive regulations' - as I said, we'll still be following the EU ones, mostly if not almost entirely.
Hear the booing and cat calls at the Nou Camp just now during the EU anthem. The EU project is going to fail as the 'little people' rise up across Europe
Do you even follow football?
1) Ode to joy is the anthem of UEFA, which is nothing to do with the EU
2) Citeh have a long standing history of booing UEFA because of some frankly bizarre decisions by UEFA, the best one being charging Citeh for racially abusing the the footballer 'Hulk' because their fans chanted ' You're not incredible anymore'
I have followed football since 1953 being a Man Utd supporter through Munich to date and when moving to North Wales became a season ticket holder. As a child I attended every home game at Berwick Rangers and then on moving to Edinburgh in 1960 became a season ticket holder at Hibernian.
I think I may have a claim to have followed football
I'm a City fan and TSE is correct, nothing to do with the EU, all about UEFA
Shame about tonight but ode to joy is the EU's anthem
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
Here's the question I'd like moderator Chris Wallace to put to Trump in tonight's debate:
"You say you want to drain the Washington swamp. But both houses of Congress have a Republican majority, so the evil few who you believe act behind the scenes wouldn't be able to control Washington and this country unless they had a lot of support from the Republican party; unless the Republican party was at least as corrupt as the Democratic party. Are you saying that you will wield the president's office against both of the major parties in their present form? And if so, then aren't you in effect running as an Independent candidate, as someone who is outside the establishment, outside and against the Republican party as much as you are outside and against the Democratic party?"
How would he answer?
Because if it's "yes", then there's a vacancy for the Republican nominee.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
We revived after we joined.
That's very true. Years of lefty mismanagement and then saved by the illustrious Lady T.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
s.
N
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
sm.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Sorry. I know you are a soft Brexiteer, and not a headbanger, but this is a logical fallacy.
Our unique handicap is not single market (rather than EU) membership. That's a significant asset as the City and Nissan will testify.
Our handicap is some deep seated issues relating to infrastructure, education, and the regional spread of wealth that all go back to our unique history as the first industrial nation, the first capitalist nation, and the centre of the world's largest empire.
Nowt to do with the EU.
We could and should be like those other nations you mention. But - all things being equal - Brexit hinders rather than helps.
Here's the question I'd like moderator Chris Wallace to put to Trump in tonight's debate:
"You say you want to drain the Washington swamp. But both houses of Congress have a Republican majority, so the evil few who you believe act behind the scenes wouldn't be able to control Washington and this country unless they had a lot of support from the Republican party; unless the Republican party was at least as corrupt as the Democratic party. Are you saying that you will wield the president's office against both of the major parties in their present form? And if so, then aren't you in effect running as an Independent candidate, as someone who is outside the establishment, outside and against the Republican party as much as you are outside and against the Democratic party?"
How would he answer?
Because if it's "yes", then there's a vacancy for the Republican nominee.
I think that question has too many words for Donald Trump to take it all in.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
We revived after we joined.
We revived because of Thatcher. FFS. This is boring.
We now risk abandoning her legacy of the single market.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
years, and even on a positive view of the trade agreement process it is going to be a lot of work and a long time just to get back to break even.
The idea that being in the EU inhibits exporting is just nonsense, when you look at Germany.
And Brexit has already forced the government to abandon its deficit reduction plan, which both it and the general consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
Norway has tons of oil - and a big pot of money it saved from previous oil, whilst we blew the proceeds of ours - and Canada, like Australia, was one big minerals mine during the boom years.
"Flexibility to respond" is just politician's waffle without any specifics. Germany is a very successful exporter outside the EU, and doesn't appear hampered by loss of flexibility.
I am comfortable with that and wouldn't trade the ability to do so for 1% or 2% of GDP either way. I appreciate others may disagree.
I think with an ever growing global network the UK is in a fantastic place.
My original point about Canada and Norway was not about what they had - but that they follow someone else's product regulations pretty religiously, JUST AS WE WILL. This may not be a hindrance but cannot by definition deliver any upside compared to now. We follow the same regulations already.
I don't see any significant way in which the EU regulates our labour market that we would wish to change? We already have a swathe of opt outs, such as from the working time regulations.
I agree the Uk is a great place. But once again this is emotion not argument.
I'm not willing to trade self-governance and democracy for a fraction of a say on product regulations in a supernational body. I'd prefer to comply with those regulations if we have to sell into it, but otherwise decide for ourselves what is best for our own domestic standards. Which may be the same, or not.
I appreciate others might disagree.
And be free to make stuff to other markets' spec, rather than over engineering for these markets.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
We have an authoritarian government who will not be keen to roll back regulation at the perceived expense of workers rights, and an opposition that would probably increase regulation ten-fold.
There is a strong possibility that rEU will pinch a large part of our services sector. With growing centres in India, and existing centres elsewhere (HK, Singapore - both of which will be after our lunch), so that's unlikely to go according to (your) plan.
And trade deals will take 4 years minimum to get up and running, with no guarantee of success, or that they'll be better that the ones the rEU will sign.
Fabricated nightmare scenario, no evidence it will happen. Confirmation bias-based.
It's not a nightmare scenario. It's just not-a-great scenario. It's also at least as likely as your land-of-milk-and-honeyjam.
Kudos for your other comment where you stated your reason for voting was all about democratic control, even at an economic expense. I disagree, but nothing wrong with it as a reason to leave.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore also are countries of immigrants (as indeed are Canada and Australia). Free market economies grow much better with freedom of movement.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We aren't giving up our UNSC seat. Had we Remained, that would have been at risk.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
rms.
NZ .
ism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
Um, no. There is an economic case for Brexit, in the medium-long term. It's just you don't agree with it.
Open Europe, the IEA and Capital Economics have all made it.
Open Europe predicted a permanent loss of GDP in the event of a hard Brexit, and the IEA and Capital Economics arguments are predicated on the believe that the EU itself will utterly fail.
You got there before me. I'd add that Bootle and others seem to believe that ultimately we can deregulate ourselves into prosperity. Yet we are already one of the most deregulated economies on Earth. We've already pulled that lever (though we could do more to break up market monopolies).
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
We revived after we joined.
We revived because of Thatcher. FFS. This is boring.
'Better global trading networks' - but we aren't really hampered now; certainly Germany isn't 'International services hub' - how or why (does Brexit make this happen)? 'Less protectionalism' - everyone is talking about a growth in protectionalism and the end of free trade, Brexit being seen as a significant step in that direction 'Flexible responsive regulations' - as I said, we'll still be following the EU ones, mostly if not almost entirely.
Anyway, time will tell.
There were statistics posted on here the other day, Ian.
Between 2002 and 2013 - the period of EU expansion to the east - UK exports fell by €4bn, German ones rose by €209bn.
Isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that:
a) Expansion to the east very much favours Germany via proximity:
b) Germany benefits from a grossly undervalued currency off the backs of the Greeks et al;
c) European resistance to free trade with North America is particularly detrimental to the UK and Ireland.
What would happen if Hammond made announcemental in the Autumn Statement which were massively beneficial to the UK but in breach of (current, under existing membership) EU rules?
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
O
So where's the upside?
Cla
All
Being outvoted is not the same as losing an argument.
As I said in the OP I do see (if not accept) the political and emotional arguments - but thanks for the reminder. None of it directs to future economic outperformance.
After a few lines you appear to have reverted to assertion based on faith?
I wasn't arguing that we should have, or should, join the euro.
I wasn't arguing that we will take a hit from Brexit (though think that we will)
I was simply challenging your assertion that in the long run there will be an economic benefit compared to remaining, by asking from whence it might come. So far silence.
No, there's been no silence at all. Don't try and argue I haven't answered a question when I have.
It will come with better global trading networks, with the UK as a growing international services hub, less protectionism towards trade and an appropriately flexible and responsive regulatory environment.
We have an authoritarian government who will not be keen to roll back regulation at the perceived expense of workers rights, and an opposition that would probably increase regulation ten-fold.
There is a strong possibility that rEU will pinch a large part of our services sector. With growing centres in India, and existing centres elsewhere (HK, Singapore - both of which will be after our lunch), so that's unlikely to go according to (your) plan.
And trade deals will take 4 years minimum to get up and running, with no guarantee of success, or that they'll be better that the ones the rEU will sign.
Fabricated nightmare scenario, no evidence it will happen. Confirmation bias-based.
I was a lot more positive about the UK's prospects on the morning of 24 June that I am now. Mrs May seems more a Heath or a Brown than a Thatcher (or even a Major) - micromanaging and delaying for political expediency.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
Nost.
.
one.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Insofar as it was an argument, you have barely got off first base. The classic correlation v causation mistake. Has it not occurred to you that those countries that are particularly able to adopt an independent and self-sufficient stance - as Switzerland has throughout its entire history, for example - would be those for whom standing outside the EU is more attractive and realistic? (The US, Australia etc. are entirely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make).
Britain could fulfill such a role when we had an empire - as the empire broke away our position deteriorated and, if you recall, we joined the EU from a position of weakness (indeed after being rejected the first time).
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
You're completely wrong. Australia is not "utterly dominated by commodities".
"The service sector of the Australian economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP"
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
I was a lot more positive about the UK's prospects on the morning of 24 June that I am now. Mrs May seems more a Heath or a Brown than a Thatcher (or even a Major) - micromanaging and delaying for political expediency.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
'Better global trading networks' - but we aren't really hampered now; certainly Germany isn't 'International services hub' - how or why (does Brexit make this happen)? 'Less protectionalism' - everyone is talking about a growth in protectionalism and the end of free trade, Brexit being seen as a significant step in that direction 'Flexible responsive regulations' - as I said, we'll still be following the EU ones, mostly if not almost entirely.
Anyway, time will tell.
There were statistics posted on here the other day, Ian.
Between 2002 and 2013 - the period of EU expansion to the east - UK exports fell by €4bn, German ones rose by €209bn.
Isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that:
a) Expansion to the east very much favours Germany via proximity:
b) Germany benefits from a grossly undervalued currency off the backs of the Greeks et al;
c) European resistance to free trade with North America is particularly detrimental to the UK and Ireland.
We won't be any nearer to Eastern Europe after Brexit, and Germany won't be any further away. Indeed in psychological terms we'll be further away. Delete a.
Yes but no-one is suggesting that we join the Euro. Delete b.
Is there any evidence that Brexit will lead to "free trade" with North America? None as yet. Put c in brackets.
Not-a-headbanger = New Zealand is a stunning success story because it's got semi-skimmed.
I have a new rule, any post containing the word "Headbanger", "Swivel-eyed" and other such nonsense terms of abuse is immediately skipped over. Posters that consistently use such terms of abuse are put on permanent ignore because they clearly have no reasonable argument to make. Makes reading PB very much faster with no loss of useful content.
I miss edmund's widget. Mr Meeks, alas, has fallen into the permanently ignore column. Headers and posts. A real shame. antifrank was worth reading.
I note someone stated that Speedy was banned. Speedy's post bring to mind HYUFD. I haven't seen him post recently. Has he been banned too?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
And I think *BITE!*
The real world is nuanced. There is good and bad in everything, including the EU.
People who come at decisions with preconceptions made bad decisions, and worse they don't realise it.
You will always look, in any story, for the reason why the EU is wrong, or is fucked. And much of the time you'll be right. But you'll always be looking for reasons to justify your position. Do you want to seek truth? Or do you merely want the satisfaction of saying "Hey! Look at this! I was right!"
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We do. At both the Security Council and NATO.
Awkward.
Those suffering from Europhilia also seem to have a terrible case of top tableism.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
'Better global trading networks' - but we aren't really hampered now; certainly Germany isn't 'International services hub' - how or why (does Brexit make this happen)? 'Less protectionalism' - everyone is talking about a growth in protectionalism and the end of free trade, Brexit being seen as a significant step in that direction 'Flexible responsive regulations' - as I said, we'll still be following the EU ones, mostly if not almost entirely.
Anyway, time will tell.
There were statistics posted on here the other day, Ian.
Between 2002 and 2013 - the period of EU expansion to the east - UK exports fell by €4bn, German ones rose by €209bn.
Isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that:
a) Expansion to the east very much favours Germany via proximity:
b) Germany benefits from a grossly undervalued currency off the backs of the Greeks et al;
c) European resistance to free trade with North America is particularly detrimental to the UK and Ireland.
Now the last is an interesting point. German success doesn't harm us. Indeed, a Germany wealthier from selling to the Slavs and stuffing the Greeks should buy more stuff from us.
But surely, the EU *is* less Atlantic facing than we'd like with respect to trade policy.
Trouble is, we'll probably need 25 years to change course for visible effects, and the loss of the single market totally outweighs and positives we might gain from increased trade with North America.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
You're completely wrong. Australia is not "utterly dominated by commodities".
"The service sector of the Australian economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP"
You are clearly an idiot, which is somewhat worrying given our financial relationship.
Somethings nagging me about GDP, services and government expenditure. I *think* it means that theh difference between 69% and 78% is really very, very large when you look at the 'proper' non-gov economy.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow right at the sunny end of the U.K. in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
lol. I know what you mean, but then I listen to the defeatist, whingeing, helpless, juvenile Remainers on pb, and I think shit, these cowardly idiots governed the country for decades - thank God we gave them a kick in the nuts and grabbed our freedom when we could.
And for what it's worth, there is a reasonable argument the EU made the Ukraine situation a whole lot worse.
Yes, I agree with that. The EU and the US meddled in the Ukraine, because there were lots of plausible, Western educated Ukranians that told them that Ukraine wanted to look West. They also meddled because - by and large - those Eastern European countries that looked West are increasingly democratic and wealthy, while those who stayed inside Russia's orbit are piss poor, and under the control of various autocrats.
Would you rather be born in a Russian satellite, or one of the Eastern European countries that joined the EU?
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
And I think *BITE!*
The real world is nuanced. There is good and bad in everything, including the EU.
People who come at decisions with preconceptions made bad decisions, and worse they don't realise it.
You will always look, in any story, for the reason why the EU is wrong, or is fucked. And much of the time you'll be right. But you'll always be looking for reasons to justify your position. Do you want to seek truth? Or do you merely want the satisfaction of saying "Hey! Look at this! I was right!"
Right now, do you have Bremorse? Would you change your vote?
No. Because we are not well suited to the EU and will always be unhappy as members.
We have a great opportunity, but it will not be achieved by sticking our fingers up at our neighbours.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilization in its entirety." - Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, 13 June 2016
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
True, but it needs less sun. Why do you think the northern parts of France switched from making acidic shit white wine when they had the brainwave of making the wine from the same grapes fizzy and naming it after their region?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
It's good, maybe even very good. But the best Californian American sparkling wine is even better these days. (Albeit it's far too expensive.)
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We do. At both the Security Council and NATO.
Awkward.
Those suffering from Europhilia also seem to have a terrible case of top tableism.
"Their Europeanism is nothing but imperialism with an inferiority complex."
"It's no good ceasing to become the world's policeman in order to become the world's parson instead"
We won't be any nearer to Eastern Europe after Brexit, and Germany won't be any further away. Indeed in psychological terms we'll be further away. Delete a.
Yes but no-one is suggesting that we join the Euro. Delete b.
Is there any evidence that Brexit will lead to "free trade" with North America? None as yet. Put c in brackets.
a) Means that the whole dynamic of the EU drifts away from the UK because the economic gain is being shared elsewhere. In the process our influence is greatly diminished because other trading relationships grow in importance and the value of the whole thing becomes less for us;
b) If you are holding Germany up as an example, then the value of a grossly undervalued currency does come in it. If the Germans were still trading in the Deutschmark, they would not be trading as they are.
c) Who knows? My guess is that trade would expand with non-EU countries as tariffs/quotas could be abolished. That is, after all, the Remainers argument in relation to the EU. No tariffs/quotas = more trade.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
You're completely wrong. Australia is not "utterly dominated by commodities".
"The service sector of the Australian economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP"
You are clearly an idiot, which is somewhat worrying given our financial relationship.
Somethings nagging me about GDP, services and government expenditure. I *think* it means that theh difference between 69% and 78% is really very, very large when you look at the 'proper' non-gov economy.
Can anyone put me right?
If you eliminate Gross Capital Formation and government spending (all services), the differnce between 69% and 78% is very significant indeed.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
English sparkling wine is exceptionally good value in comparison to champagne.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the five conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Is it not telling that you can't cite an example, despite evidence that this hasn't been an entirely peaceful period, of such conflict arising within the EU?
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
You're completely wrong. Australia is not "utterly dominated by commodities".
"The service sector of the Australian economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP"
You are clearly an idiot, which is somewhat worrying given our financial relationship.
Somethings nagging me about GDP, services and government expenditure. I *think* it means that theh difference between 69% and 78% is really very, very large when you look at the 'proper' non-gov economy.
Can anyone put me right?
If you eliminate Gross Capital Formation and government spending (all services), the differnce between 69% and 78% is very significant indeed.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
And I think *BITE!*
The real world is nuanced. There is good and bad in everything, including the EU.
People who come at decisions with preconceptions made bad decisions, and worse they don't realise it.
You will always look, in any story, for the reason why the EU is wrong, or is fucked. And much of the time you'll be right. But you'll always be looking for reasons to justify your position. Do you want to seek truth? Or do you merely want the satisfaction of saying "Hey! Look at this! I was right!"
Right now, do you have Bremorse? Would you change your vote?
I've just watched Rai this evening. Renzi is getting the state treatment in the US, the kind of treatment people like Blair got when we were something. Even if the economy isn't going to tank, does it not bother you at all that the UK is shifting to the margins of world affairs?
It pisses me off to be honest that we have once again made ourselves completely inconsequential, our great country loathed or worse ignored, because of Brexit. And people like you have the gall to call me a traitor.
If, intelligent people haven't got Bremorse with everything that you read, then I give up...
There again we have Liam Fox showing us the light.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
English sparkling wine is exceptionally good value in comparison to champagne.
Just a note for the interested. The arrest of a Russian hacker in Prague two weeks ago but only announced now, is effectively a 21st century spin on the old Cold War chessboard.
Prague has form as a bit playground for Russian intelligence and associated ne'er do wells but this guy hadn't long been in the city before he was scooped up, apparently based on a a tip off from the FBI.
This is not a one off, the collective Western Intelligence apparatus, hugely dominated by the Americans & British when it comes to cyber-related intelligence and counter intelligence has their list of targets and they will go looking. When the nouveau riche in Russia, of which some of these hackers are in that number, find they might not be able to travel safely west of their borders, life gets less pleasant.
For debate night tonight between Clinton & Trump, I mentioned last night in passing about someone claiming to be Bill Clinton's illegitimate son rumoured to be on the Trump guest list. Still doing the rounds that rumour.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
In possibly the least self-aware comment I've ever made here, I've never really understood the point of non-Champagne sparkling wine. None that I've had have ever been nicer than still Burgundian white...
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
Question: why, uniquely in all the world, do European states need a supranational federation to save them from themselves?
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
Yo
Somethings nagging me about GDP, services and government expenditure. I *think* it means that theh difference between 69% and 78% is really very, very large when you look at the 'proper' non-gov economy.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
.
.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow right at the sunny end of the U.K. in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
It was me who said our climates are "not dissimilar" as I was sarcastically agreeing that we could replicate the NZ model.
But we can't make a NZ Pinot. You lucky thing. I'm on a diet and mostly not allowed to indulge at the mo.
We won't be any nearer to Eastern Europe after Brexit, and Germany won't be any further away. Indeed in psychological terms we'll be further away. Delete a.
Yes but no-one is suggesting that we join the Euro. Delete b.
Is there any evidence that Brexit will lead to "free trade" with North America? None as yet. Put c in brackets.
a) Means that the whole dynamic of the EU drifts away from the UK because the economic gain is being shared elsewhere. In the process our influence is greatly diminished because other trading relationships grow in importance and the value of the whole thing becomes less for us;
b) If you are holding Germany up as an example, then the value of a grossly undervalued currency does come in it. If the Germans were still trading in the Deutschmark, they would not be trading as they are.
c) Who knows? My guess is that trade would expand with non-EU countries as tariffs/quotas could be abolished. That is, after all, the Remainers argument in relation to the EU. No tariffs/quotas = more trade.
Yes but staying in the EU delivers free trade with 26 other EU countries by definition. Leaving the EU doesn't offer any short-term, and quite possibly little long-term, prospect of "free trade" with the US. Europe is already up in arms about the pro-US nature of many of the TTIP provisions, and we would need to believe that the UK on its own can somehow deliver a dramatically different deal, whilst we are still all alive to see it?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow right at the sunny end of the U.K. in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
I don't mind Pinot Noir as a cool climate red, but I've never really got the hype. I do really like decent Loire Valley Cabernet Franc, which in France is from similar latitudes.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
And I think *BITE!*
The real world is nuanced. There is good and bad in everything, including the EU.
People who come at decisions with preconceptions made bad decisions, and worse they don't realise it.
You will always look, in any story, for the reason why the EU is wrong, or is fucked. And much of the time you'll be right. But you'll always be looking for reasons to justify your position. Do you want to seek truth? Or do you merely want the satisfaction of saying "Hey! Look at this! I was right!"
Right now, do you have Bremorse? Would you change your vote?
No. Because we are not well suited to the EU and will always be unhappy as members.
We have a great opportunity, but it will not be achieved by sticking our fingers up at our neighbours.
I agree with that. If there is one thing that infuriates me about the TMay government, it's her tin ear for the way she and her ministers come across, abroad.
The Rudd foreigner-list stuff went down very badly. "Citizen of the world = citizen of nowhere" was equally unpopular. And why, when May says "we are seeking the best deal for the UK" can't she say "we are seeking the best deal for the UK AND our dear EU friends, a deal that makes everyone happier".
It's just words, but right now words are super important. FAIL.
Mrs May is obsessed with short term domestic popularity. It means delaying Heathrow to avoid a (temporary) dip in the polls in West London. It means a rabble rousing speech rather than getting people (who don't vote) on side.
Her obsession with being liked is a fatal character flaw.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
lol. I know what you mean, but then I listen to the defeatist, whingeing, helpless, juvenile Remainers on pb, and I think shit, these cowardly idiots governed the country for decades - thank God we gave them a kick in the nuts and grabbed our freedom when we could.
And for what it's worth, there is a reasonable argument the EU made the Ukraine situation a whole lot worse.
Yes, I agree with that. The EU and the US meddled in the Ukraine, because there were lots of plausible, Western educated Ukranians that told them that Ukraine wanted to look West. They also meddled because - by and large - those Eastern European countries that looked West are increasingly democratic and wealthy, while those who stayed inside Russia's orbit are piss poor, and under the control of various autocrats.
Would you rather be born in a Russian satellite, or one of the Eastern European countries that joined the EU?
That would rather depend on whether or not I was a Russian. No question, if I were a Pole, a Latvian, a Hungarian, I would prefer to be one of the latter. If I were a Russian in the Crimea, I'd want to be part of the homeland.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the five conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Is it not telling that you can't cite an example, despite evidence that this hasn't been an entirely peaceful period, of such conflict arising within the EU?
Northern Ireland is within the EU, as is the basque region.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow right at the sunny end of the U.K. in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
I don't mind Pinot Noir as a cool climate red, but I've never really got the hype. I do really like decent Loire Valley Cabernet Franc, which in France is from similar latitudes.
Pinot Noir is a great red wine to drink on its own, or with dishes normally paired with a white like Christmas Dinner or stronger flavoured fish. But your choice is better the minute you kill an animal and put it to roast over the fire.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
lol. I know what you mean, but then I listen to the defeatist, whingeing, helpless, juvenile Remainers on pb, and I think shit, these cowardly idiots governed the country for decades - thank God we gave them a kick in the nuts and grabbed our freedom when we could.
And for what it's worth, there is a reasonable argument the EU made the Ukraine situation a whole lot worse.
Been on the sauce Sean? Whining juvenile remoaner x
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
Like the war in the Ukraine caused by the EU?
Yes. The war in the Ukraine was solely caused by the EU and the desires of many Ukrainians, the US and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
lol. I know what you mean, but then I listen to the defeatist, whingeing, helpless, juvenile Remainers on pb, and I think shit, these cowardly idiots governed the country for decades - thank God we gave them a kick in the nuts and grabbed our freedom when we could.
And for what it's worth, there is a reasonable argument the EU made the Ukraine situation a whole lot worse.
Yes, I agree with that. The EU and the US meddled in the Ukraine, because there were lots of plausible, Western educated Ukranians that told them that Ukraine wanted to look West. They also meddled because - by and large - those Eastern European countries that looked West are increasingly democratic and wealthy, while those who stayed inside Russia's orbit are piss poor, and under the control of various autocrats.
Would you rather be born in a Russian satellite, or one of the Eastern European countries that joined the EU?
That would rather depend on whether or not I was a Russian. No question, if I were a Pole, a Latvian, a Hungarian, I would prefer to be one of the latter. If I were a Russian in the Crimea, I'd want to be part of the homeland.
Ah, but invoke Rawls "veil of ignorance". If you didn't know anything about which family you might be born into, would you choose to be born in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic or would you choose a Russian satellite state?
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the five conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Is it not telling that you can't cite an example, despite evidence that this hasn't been an entirely peaceful period, of such conflict arising within the EU?
Yes, I think it is. The main reason I support British membership of the EU comes down to the simple matter of the value of friendship and cooperation with other nearby countries; not because it supposedly gives Britain more international influence, which in military matters it doesn't.
Here's the question I'd like moderator Chris Wallace to put to Trump in tonight's debate:
"You say you want to drain the Washington swamp. But both houses of Congress have a Republican majority, so the evil few who you believe act behind the scenes wouldn't be able to control Washington and this country unless they had a lot of support from the Republican party; unless the Republican party was at least as corrupt as the Democratic party. Are you saying that you will wield the president's office against both of the major parties in their present form? And if so, then aren't you in effect running as an Independent candidate, as someone who is outside the establishment, outside and against the Republican party as much as you are outside and against the Democratic party?"
How would he answer?
He'd say something like: When I'm president I'm going to make it so great. It's gonna be unbelievably great, believe me. These people they don't understand trade deals. China. Disaster. I'm gonna make it so great. Iran.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow right at the sunny end of the U.K. in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
I don't mind Pinot Noir as a cool climate red, but I've never really got the hype. I do really like decent Loire Valley Cabernet Franc, which in France is from similar latitudes.
The most overpriced wines in the world are all Pinot Noirs.
There's a huge economic case for Brexit. And it is very simple. West European countries outside the EU are richer than the EU. Switzerland, Norway. English speaking countries outside the EU are richer than the EU: Canada, USA, Australia.
Is there some unique handicap that prevents the UK - historically perhaps the most resourceful of all nations - from emulating Switzerland, or Canada, or Norway, or Australia?
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
Look, I've argued for Brexit on here for a long-time. But Canada, Norway and Australia are not countries we can emulate. In each case their exports are utterly dominated by commodities.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
You're completely wrong. Australia is not "utterly dominated by commodities".
"The service sector of the Australian economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP"
You are clearly an idiot, which is somewhat worrying given our financial relationship.
Somethings nagging me about GDP, services and government expenditure. I *think* it means that theh difference between 69% and 78% is really very, very large when you look at the 'proper' non-gov economy.
Can anyone put me right?
Yes. You're wrong.
RCS thinks not. I'd weight your advice on food, wine*, holiday destinations and colourful insults above his, but on matters financial...
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
Question: why, uniquely in all the world, do European states need a supranational federation to save them from themselves?
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
Nail, head, hit. I have tried putting this basic question to Remainers and not once had a satisfactory answer.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point settles this argument? I have by my side an open bottle of NZ Pinot Noir. Superb. And a memory of a red wine from the Isle of Wight from some grape i cannot remember; one of the few that will grow here in a good year. It was just about drinkable.
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
In possibly the least self-aware comment I've ever made here, I've never really understood the point of non-Champagne sparkling wine. None that I've had have ever been nicer than still Burgundian white...
All sparkling wines are basically poor over-acidic white wines with added bubbles and marketing.
Just my view. For the same money you can actually buy something nice to drink.
If you are in the US or Australia, there are local sparkling wines that never make it to the UK that are excellent and are £10/bottle rather than £30.
I really need to check out the US wines as I have not paid them much attention.
I stumbled across a restaurant the other day that runs a champagne Fridays promotion which makes their Ridgeview Rose £25 a bottle. At Waitrose it would be £34 (inc delivery) unless buying in bulk.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
No.......Many people like me saw the UK as the central and lead player in shaping Europe, at the heart of Europe, attracting the best of Europe.
It is people like you that perceived Europe as a threat. People like me saw the opportunities that the EU provided a country like Britain.
Sadly, we will get poorer and inconsequential on the periphery....not just Europe, but the world as the US, China, Japan et al will all naturally be pulled to the EU single market because of commercial interests.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the five conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Is it not telling that you can't cite an example, despite evidence that this hasn't been an entirely peaceful period, of such conflict arising within the EU?
Northern Ireland is within the EU, as is the basque region.
Both those conflicts were underway before their respective countries joined the EU.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
Question: why, uniquely in all the world, do European states need a supranational federation to save them from themselves?
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
Nail, head, hit. I have tried putting this basic question to Remainers and not once had a satisfactory answer.
Federations were something of an obsession of the UK establishment after WW2.
They set up one in Malaysia - singapore soon jumped ship.
Central African Federation was gone by '63 after 10 years.
Similar failed attempt in the West Indies.
There is a rather old fashioned The Gentlemen in Whitehall Know best attitude in the remainer establishment.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
Question: why, uniquely in all the world, do European states need a supranational federation to save them from themselves?
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
Because of Europe's history. But the planet is littered with regional supranational bodies. Others may catch up in time.
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar.
Their Pinot suggests that it is.
Inland Otago has a very continental climate, with long hot summers and cold winters, but with favourable microclimates and so both grapes and stone fruit grow well there. It is too dry for dairy country.
Dairy country is further north on the lush pastures of the North Island where the rain and warmth mean that grass grows speedily all year round.
Cough. Nowhere in NZ can rightfully be said to have "long hot summers". Otago does have warm summers thanks to its being in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps. But, then, London also has warm mostly dry summers, on average, which few credit it with. For some reason, people massively overrate the weather in NZ. Perhaps it is a product of New Zealanders' optimism compared to British reserve. Much of the NZ weather is similar to Britain, and in many regions it is far, far wetter.
I did live there over a year! The west coast is very wet, but the East coast is dry, and even in winter in Christchurch after a frost it would be t shirt weather in the afternoon. Best climate of anywhere I have been apart from the highlands of Kenya.
You can't judge a NZ's climate by living there for a year. It has highly variable weather thanks to it being a maritime climate exposed to the whims of the South Pacific. Winters, and summers, vary a great deal - just like they do here. You are confusing weather with climate.
lets start a weather v climate argument to stop all this hot air over the eu lol
Surely the wine point .
But English sparkling wine is now arguably as good as anything from anywhere, except perhaps the best champagne.
In possibly the least self-aware comment I've ever made here, I've never really understood the point of non-Champagne sparkling wine. None that I've had have ever been nicer than still Burgundian white...
All sparkling wines are basically poor over-acidic white wines with added bubbles and marketing.
Just my view. For the same money you can actually buy something nice to drink.
I am with you on this one. English wine is a diverting novelty but nothing more.
Drink beer or whisky if you want a decent drink of something domestic. Leave wine to the foreigners.
Just a note for the interested. The arrest of a Russian hacker in Prague two weeks ago but only announced now, is effectively a 21st century spin on the old Cold War chessboard.
Prague has form as a bit playground for Russian intelligence and associated ne'er do wells but this guy hadn't long been in the city before he was scooped up, apparently based on a a tip off from the FBI.
This is not a one off, the collective Western Intelligence apparatus, hugely dominated by the Americans & British when it comes to cyber-related intelligence and counter intelligence has their list of targets and they will go looking. When the nouveau riche in Russia, of which some of these hackers are in that number, find they might not be able to travel safely west of their borders, life gets less pleasant.
For debate night tonight between Clinton & Trump, I mentioned last night in passing about someone claiming to be Bill Clinton's illegitimate son rumoured to be on the Trump guest list. Still doing the rounds that rumour.
If he brings him in Trump will be a joke. More likely he just brings the mother of one of the Benghazi victims.
the political structures that have secured peace and prosperity .
Here is naked complacency.
Put it this way: If an issue were to arise which was of such consequence that it risked an escalation towards armed conflict within Europe, would you rather Britain had a seat at the table or not?
We have a permanent one at the UN security council. That will do.
And there's also the point "Seat at the EU table? What, like Lithuania?"
?
I mean to say that Britain has had influence in places in Europe where divisions have escalated not just towards armed conflict but actually to armed conflict, such as Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia, and they have had little or no influence in the conflict in Novorossiya (there hasn't actually been an armed conflict in Crimea), and no influence in the brutal conflicts in Chechnya, which is also in Europe - and their amount of influence has depended largely on factors unconnected with their membership of the EU. Lithuania has a "seat at the table" in the EU but will have little influence on any escalation not directly affecting their own territory. Portugal had a seat at the EU table all the way through all of the five conflicts I've mentioned, and no influence.
Is it not telling that you can't cite an example, despite evidence that this hasn't been an entirely peaceful period, of such conflict arising within the EU?
Northern Ireland is within the EU, as is the basque region.
Both those conflicts were underway before their respective countries joined the EU.
(Snip) I expect us to do better than rEU in the long run.
That is theneral consensus previously viewed as essential to safeguard our economic future.
So where's the upside?
Classic failure to think outside the box: EU represents an ever declining portion of our trade in a global world, and our own ability to regulate our own economy and do our trade deals allows us far more flexibility in responding to global economic developments in the future.
And Norway and Canada are very rich countries.
N
Yep, heard all that before. Norway has oil. Canada and Australia has minerals. Rinse and repeat. Although, funnily enough, I never hear what New Zealand is supposed to have.
It's rubbish. .
NZ has dair
NZ does well because it's got milk.
Brilliant.
Do you really believe this nonsense?
Yes. A population of 4.5 million is the largest dairy exporter on earth.
We could replicate that model. Our climate is not dissimilar. But we'd probably have to clear the Midlands and the West Country completely to make way for dairy farms.
NZ doessh speaking economies. They do better than most.
Quite so. You could also construct a credible argument to say that we will do better because we will forced to fix our own mistakes.
You could also construct the opposite: that such is our lack of self-confidence and self-belief in ourselves that we're not willing to get out of bed in the morning without the crutch of supernationalism.
We end though with my assertion above. There is no economic case for Brexit.
We may recover out national mojo. But that's more of a psychological argument than an economic one.
NO. If there is any handicap, it must be EU membership itself. The argument ends.
No! We joined the EU because our economy was the sick man of Europe, not because we were thriving. You have your history back to front.
We revived after we joined.
That's very true. Years of lefty mismanagement and then saved by the illustrious Lady T.
The upside for Leavers is the downside for Remainers. Namely, we get to govern ourselves, with all the good and bad choices, risks and opportunities, which that entails.
Yes: our range of outcomes is much wider than it was before. Think of how well we might do under a Thatcher now; or how badly we might under a Corbyn.
At the heart of the Remain argument, I think, is that the EU is necessary to save us from ourselves.
Yes. Key elements of all Civilisations are about saving us from ourselves. For all her admirers Randian states have been as successful historically as Communist ones.
Question: why, uniquely in all the world, do European states need a supranational federation to save them from themselves?
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
Nail, head, hit. I have tried putting this basic question to Remainers and not once had a satisfactory answer.
Globalisation, easier travel, technology are all, for most economic purposes, making the world a much smaller place. In time, countries will progressively be drawn into the American, European or Chinese orbit, or will team together to create proto-EUs of their own. There are already signs of this being thought about in South America, for example.
The trick is to combine these centripetal forces with localism to make sure that matters best decided locally are decided at national, or ideally regional or local level. It is this dimension where the EU (or more accurately most of the EU states) has been weak.
Comments
We have an authoritarian government who will not be keen to roll back regulation at the perceived expense of workers rights, and an opposition that would probably increase regulation ten-fold.
There is a strong possibility that rEU will pinch a large part of our services sector. With growing centres in India, and existing centres elsewhere (HK, Singapore - both of which will be after our lunch), so that's unlikely to go according to (your) plan.
And trade deals will take 4 years minimum to get up and running, with no guarantee of success, or that they'll be better that the ones the rEU will sign.
Still, nice to dream.
Night all.
It's a fairly hopeless institution offering little tangible benefit.
'Better global trading networks' - but we aren't really hampered now; certainly Germany isn't
'International services hub' - how or why (does Brexit make this happen)?
'Less protectionalism' - everyone is talking about a growth in protectionalism and the end of free trade, Brexit being seen as a significant step in that direction
'Flexible responsive regulations' - as I said, we'll still be following the EU ones, mostly if not almost entirely.
Anyway, time will tell.
We revived after we joined.
Arguing we can be like them is like arguing we can be like Saudi Arabia.
Now: Switzerland, or Singapore, or Hong Kong: those are trading countries, with limited natural resources, that we can hope to emulate.
But Australia, Canada, or Norway: you're having a laugh.
"You say you want to drain the Washington swamp. But both houses of Congress have a Republican majority, so the evil few who you believe act behind the scenes wouldn't be able to control Washington and this country unless they had a lot of support from the Republican party; unless the Republican party was at least as corrupt as the Democratic party. Are you saying that you will wield the president's office against both of the major parties in their present form? And if so, then aren't you in effect running as an Independent candidate, as someone who is outside the establishment, outside and against the Republican party as much as you are outside and against the Democratic party?"
How would he answer?
Because if it's "yes", then there's a vacancy for the Republican nominee.
Our unique handicap is not single market (rather than EU) membership. That's a significant asset as the City and Nissan will testify.
Our handicap is some deep seated issues relating to infrastructure, education, and the regional spread of wealth that all go back to our unique history as the first industrial nation, the first capitalist nation, and the centre of the world's largest empire.
Nowt to do with the EU.
We could and should be like those other nations you mention. But - all things being equal - Brexit hinders rather than helps.
Kudos for your other comment where you stated your reason for voting was all about democratic control, even at an economic expense. I disagree, but nothing wrong with it as a reason to leave.
I'd add that Bootle and others seem to believe that ultimately we can deregulate ourselves into prosperity. Yet we are already one of the most deregulated economies on Earth. We've already pulled that lever (though we could do more to break up market monopolies).
Between 2002 and 2013 - the period of EU expansion to the east - UK exports fell by €4bn, German ones rose by €209bn.
Isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that:
a) Expansion to the east very much favours Germany via proximity:
b) Germany benefits from a grossly undervalued currency off the backs of the Greeks et al;
c) European resistance to free trade with North America is particularly detrimental to the UK and Ireland.
Could the EU do anything about it?
Britain could fulfill such a role when we had an empire - as the empire broke away our position deteriorated and, if you recall, we joined the EU from a position of weakness (indeed after being rejected the first time).
When I see comments like this, I find myself thinking "Fuck it, why did I vote Brexit? Do I want to be on the side of such inanity?"
Yes but no-one is suggesting that we join the Euro. Delete b.
Is there any evidence that Brexit will lead to "free trade" with North America? None as yet. Put c in brackets.
I note someone stated that Speedy was banned. Speedy's post bring to mind HYUFD. I haven't seen him post recently. Has he been banned too?
People who come at decisions with preconceptions made bad decisions, and worse they don't realise it.
You will always look, in any story, for the reason why the EU is wrong, or is fucked. And much of the time you'll be right. But you'll always be looking for reasons to justify your position. Do you want to seek truth? Or do you merely want the satisfaction of saying "Hey! Look at this! I was right!"
Those suffering from Europhilia also seem to have a terrible case of top tableism.
But surely, the EU *is* less Atlantic facing than we'd like with respect to trade policy.
Trouble is, we'll probably need 25 years to change course for visible effects, and the loss of the single market totally outweighs and positives we might gain from increased trade with North America.
Can anyone put me right?
Would you rather be born in a Russian satellite, or one of the Eastern European countries that joined the EU?
We have a great opportunity, but it will not be achieved by sticking our fingers up at our neighbours.
Inanity has many faces...
"It's no good ceasing to become the world's policeman in order to become the world's parson instead"
Dennis Healey
b) If you are holding Germany up as an example, then the value of a grossly undervalued currency does come in it. If the Germans were still trading in the Deutschmark, they would not be trading as they are.
c) Who knows? My guess is that trade would expand with non-EU countries as tariffs/quotas could be abolished. That is, after all, the Remainers argument in relation to the EU. No tariffs/quotas = more trade.
It pisses me off to be honest that we have once again made ourselves completely inconsequential, our great country loathed or worse ignored, because of Brexit. And people like you have the gall to call me a traitor.
If, intelligent people haven't got Bremorse with everything that you read, then I give up...
There again we have Liam Fox showing us the light.
If you are in the US or Australia, there are local sparkling wines that never make it to the UK that are excellent and are £10/bottle rather than £30.
Prague has form as a bit playground for Russian intelligence and associated ne'er do wells but this guy hadn't long been in the city before he was scooped up, apparently based on a a tip off from the FBI.
This is not a one off, the collective Western Intelligence apparatus, hugely dominated by the Americans & British when it comes to cyber-related intelligence and counter intelligence has their list of targets and they will go looking. When the nouveau riche in Russia, of which some of these hackers are in that number, find they might not be able to travel safely west of their borders, life gets less pleasant.
For debate night tonight between Clinton & Trump, I mentioned last night in passing about someone claiming to be Bill Clinton's illegitimate son rumoured to be on the Trump guest list. Still doing the rounds that rumour.
If you said that, for example, Zambia or Bolivia or Jamaica or Australia needed to be subjected to a supranational framework to stop them from going rogue, the screams of racism, imperialism and colonialism from certain sections of the public and the press would never die. Well, except perhaps in the case of Australia, which is predominantly white and therefore not only can but must be openly and loudly denounced.
If people in Spain, the Czech Republic and Belgium really want to be part of a federal Europe then that, of course, is up to them - but you would rather hope that they had more constructive reasons than "to be saved from our own evil." And the UK is perfectly entitled to opt out of the whole idea, regardless.
But we can't make a NZ Pinot. You lucky thing. I'm on a diet and mostly not allowed to indulge at the mo.
Her obsession with being liked is a fatal character flaw.
*Actually, possible not on wine.
Just my view. For the same money you can actually buy something nice to drink.
I stumbled across a restaurant the other day that runs a champagne Fridays promotion which makes their Ridgeview Rose £25 a bottle. At Waitrose it would be £34 (inc delivery) unless buying in bulk.
It is people like you that perceived Europe as a threat. People like me saw the opportunities that the EU provided a country like Britain.
Sadly, we will get poorer and inconsequential on the periphery....not just Europe, but the world as the US, China, Japan et al will all naturally be pulled to the EU single market because of commercial interests.
They set up one in Malaysia - singapore soon jumped ship.
Central African Federation was gone by '63 after 10 years.
Similar failed attempt in the West Indies.
There is a rather old fashioned The Gentlemen in Whitehall Know best attitude in the remainer establishment.
Often the federated people think otherwise
Drink beer or whisky if you want a decent drink of something domestic. Leave wine to the foreigners.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865665163/GOP-Utah-lawmakers-endorse-Evan-McMullin-for-president.hemp
The trick is to combine these centripetal forces with localism to make sure that matters best decided locally are decided at national, or ideally regional or local level. It is this dimension where the EU (or more accurately most of the EU states) has been weak.