another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.

IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.

China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.

The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.

So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?

China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?

What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.

Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.

China does not have full, unfettered access to the single market. It has a degree of access. If we have the same that will involve us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as of people.

I didn't think we had free trade in services at present.

And the UK might decide it doesn't need full free trade in goods if the cost to achieve it is too high.

It may do. But no party with the chance of forming a government is saying that.

Simon Heffer on Trump v Clinton:

"The fight is portrayed as establishment versus anti-establishment. But it also one of reason against emotion, and it is far from clear reason will prevail."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12183862/Hillary-Clinton-will-find-it-harder-to-crush-Donald-Trump-than-she-thinks.html

rottenborough said:

Simon Heffer on Trump v Clinton:

"The fight is portrayed as establishment versus anti-establishment. But it also one of reason against emotion, and it is far from clear reason will prevail."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12183862/Hillary-Clinton-will-find-it-harder-to-crush-Donald-Trump-than-she-thinks.html

Heffer is getting ahead of himself, might not be Trump.

Plato_Says said:

Really? That many?

I don't bother myself except on v rare occasions, ditto QT.

rottenborough said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

nigel4england said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HurstLlama said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HurstLlama said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to Wolfgang Schauble on Marr I was impressed with the simple way he explained his regret if UK leave but quite firmly stated that on exit UK would be offered a trade deal but that we would have to pay in and absolutely agree to free movement of labour. This just seems to me to demolish leave's case and they need to come out with a realistic counter argument. Boris on Marr just full of bluster

One German politician, with his own and his country's agenda in mind, makes a vague statement and that is conclusive for remain in your view, Big G

It is difficult for leave to demolish due to his position in the German Government and his influence in the EU but I am undecided as yet on the issue

Full respect, Mr. G, but one politician giving his opinion is as meaningful as another politician giving a different opinion. Schauble is a member of the German government and one whose views do not always hold sway even within that government. To take his opinion as a certain indicator of the future is, I suggest, less than sensible.

I think the problem for leave is that he is an influential politician in Germany and the EU and his argument has a logic as free movement of labour is the holy grail of the EU. His interview was followed by Boris's 'car crash' and Gove's project fear article in the Sunday Times. Not a good morning for leave

On the contrary I think it's a very good morning for Leave.

Boris' comments will resonate with small businesses, being threatened by the Germans following the French threat, only us anoraks watch Marr, and Gove is widely respected as being an honest man.

Not if you’re a teacher.

Had lunch the other day with a recently retired languages teacher. She was of the view that Gove was the best thing that had happened to teaching in many a year.

Teachers are not a homogenous mass.

Around 2 million people watch Andrew Marr. Slightly more than "us anoraks" on PB.

Viewing figures quoted on Wikipedia. I suspect that many people have it on in the background whilst they make a late Sunday breakfast.

Personally, I usually video it and then watch later, skipping the rubbish bits. Generally, Marr gives pols a very easy time of it.

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Simon Heffer on Trump v Clinton:

"The fight is portrayed as establishment versus anti-establishment. But it also one of reason against emotion, and it is far from clear reason will prevail."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12183862/Hillary-Clinton-will-find-it-harder-to-crush-Donald-Trump-than-she-thinks.html

Heffer is getting ahead of himself, might not be Trump.

It's going to be Trump. For sure.

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

flightpath01 said:

another_richard said:

ScottP

Might I ask what employment you have ?

Apart from bleating and tweeting on this site all day and every day.

I work in export manufacturing and can tell you your logic is bollox.

Why?

Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.

And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.

You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?

Certainly there would be negotiations and they should be conducted sensibly as these are practical issues.

But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.

Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.

There would be no grovelling. But there would be a realistic assessment on both sides. The nature of import/exports would be a key issue.

Well there's this for starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_UK

I doubt there's much which any country produces, outside of some highly specialised new technology, which can't be sourced from another country.

The area of risk for trade disruption would be for international businesses which have different parts, eg aero or motor engines, of a final product made in multiple countries.

The issue is what can be sourced from another country without reducing competition and raising prices. If cars from the EU cost more that his a direct and immediate consequence for UK consumers. If Airbus UK components cost more that has a direct and immediate consequence for Airbus, but is not going to have much of an immediate impact on the average EU citizen.

OllyT said:

According to the Economist Norway is the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget despite not being in it. I am sure that will come as a surprise to many LEAVERS . According to the same source in 2013 (latest comparable data) Norway admitted twice as many EU immigrants per head of population than the UK.

LOL Very clever - or rather very disingenuous - of the Economist.

Rather than saying that Norway were the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget what they should have said was that Norway is the 10th highest NET contributor and in fact is the lowest of all net contributors. And that is in spite of it having the highest GDP/capita of any country in Europe bar Luxembourg. - who incidently are not a net contributor.

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.

IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.

China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.

The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.

So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?

China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?

What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.

Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.

China does not have full, unfettered access to the single market. It has a degree of access. If we have the same that will involve us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as of people.

I didn't think we had free trade in services at present.

And the UK might decide it doesn't need full free trade in goods if the cost to achieve it is too high.

It may do. But no party with the chance of forming a government is saying that.

What worries me if we do leave and nothing much changes is that it opens the way for a Trump-like figure.

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.

IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.

China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.

The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.

So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?

China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?

What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.

Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.

China does not have full, unfettered access to the single market. It has a degree of access. If we have the same that will involve us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as of people.

I didn't think we had free trade in services at present.

And the UK might decide it doesn't need full free trade in goods if the cost to achieve it is too high.

It may do. But no party with the chance of forming a government is saying that.

They would change their tune if they had to conduct any actual negotiations with the EU.

CameronReek has shown what happens when you try to negotiate after you've told everyone you'll accept anything you're given.

Possibly. But I doubt any imaginable UK government is going to give up freedom of movement in goods, services and capital in order to achieve a meaningful change to provisions on free movement of people, especially given the number of UK citizens living in various parts of the EU.

New Thread New Thread

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

another_richard said:

FrankBooth said:

Interestingly does the UK have a trade deficit with the US? Presumably by Brexit logic that would mean they would be falling over us to give us whatever we want? What about China? Must be a trade deficit.

IIRC the UK has a trade surplus with the USA and with the non-EU as a whole.

China is one of the non-EU countries which has a trade surplus with the UK.

The UK's trade deficit with 'continental' EU is significantly larger than that with the EU as a whole as the UK has a huge trade surplus with the Irish Republic.

So are you going to get single market access without accepting free movement, EU laws and budget contributions?

China has single market access, does it accept free movement, EU laws and budget contributions ?

What happens in negotiations is both sides give a little to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.

Or they do unless one of the negotiators is CameronReek.

China does not have full, unfettered access to the single market. It has a degree of access. If we have the same that will involve us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital, as well as of people.

I didn't think we had free trade in services at present.

And the UK might decide it doesn't need full free trade in goods if the cost to achieve it is too high.

It may do. But no party with the chance of forming a government is saying that.

What worries me if we do leave and nothing much changes is that it opens the way for a Trump-like figure.

It is undoubtedly the case that there will be a number of very angry Leavers. But not all Leavers will feel betrayed and you'll have to add them to those who voted to Remain and the people who did not vote at all.

flightpath01 said:

And as a result a neonazi nutjob went on a killing spree. That tells us how easy life is outside the EU.

Your ignorance is once again truly stunning. Norway is one of the most integrated countries of anywhere in Europe. They have totally rejected the whole concept of multiculturalism and have insisted that anyone settling in the country learns the language and have strict rules to prevent the development of ghettos or isolation from mainstream Norwegian society.

If the UK were a tenth as integrated and settled a place as Norway then we would be a much happier and more pleasant country. Instead we have to put up with epsilon semi morons like you trying to make political capital out of one lunatic.

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

Because people conduct business transactions on the basis of profitability, and the trade between the EU and Britain is a lot more profitable for the EU than it is for Britain.

And might I ask what your area of employment is Flightpath.

You need to ask yourself how much trade Germany loses in the case of hardball negotiations. It's not a zero sum game. If we restrict auto imports from the EU, for example, we just make them more expensive, so reducing choice and inviting other auto companirs to raise prices given the increased demand and reduced competition. Why would a UK government do that? What are we exporting to the EU that cannot be obtained elsewhere without having a significant impact on cost?

Certainly there would be negotiations and they should be conducted sensibly as these are practical issues.

But the idea that the UK would grovel and be dictated to as the 'undecided' bleaters and tweeters claim is bollox.

Unless that is CameronReek was allowed to conduct the negotiations.

There would be no grovelling. But there would be a realistic assessment on both sides. The nature of import/exports would be a key issue.

Well there's this for starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_UK

I doubt there's much which any country produces, outside of some highly specialised new technology, which can't be sourced from another country.

The area of risk for trade disruption would be for international businesses which have different parts, eg aero or motor engines, of a final product made in multiple countries.

The issue is what can be sourced from another country without reducing competition and raising prices. If cars from the EU cost more that his a direct and immediate consequence for UK consumers. If Airbus UK components cost more that has a direct and immediate consequence for Airbus, but is not going to have much of an immediate impact on the average EU citizen.

And restricting goods from the UK or increasing their prices has a direct and immediate cost for EU consumers.

The issue becomes how much benefit is free trade to yourself compared with the costs that have to be paid for it.

Is free trade in cars worth it to the UK if the cost is free movement of people ?

That is what would have to be negotiated.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OllyT said:

....

LOL Very clever - or rather very disingenuous - of the Economist.

Rather than saying that Norway were the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget what they should have said was that Norway is the 10th highest NET contributor and in fact is the lowest of all net contributors. And that is in spite of it having the highest GDP/capita of any country in Europe bar Luxembourg. - who incidently are not a net contributor.

Norway is currently in dispute because its being asked to increase its contribution (five fold I think)
The CBI say
''The EEA countries do not pay directly into the EU’s budget. However, they do contribute to a separate EEA Grant, amounting to €988.5 million for the 2009–14 period, while Norway in addition finances the Norway Grants of €800 million. Norway is thus the tenth highest contributor to the EU, despite not being a member, with per capita contributions of €100, well over half of the UK’s contributions (€180).

In addition, the countries pay directly for participation in EU programmes, and EEA EFTA contributions to EU Programmes in 2013 are estimated to be €284 million. Taking part in these programmes is seen as vital in all EEA EFTA countries to bring both capital and knowledge, in particular boosting turnover in the area of research. Becoming a member of EFTA would also mean budgetary contributions to the funding of the Secretariat, which in 2013 had a budget of approximately £15 million.

Although the UK would likely see its absolute contributions to ‘European’ budgets fall were it to leave, the relative contributions it would have to make if it pursued the ‘Norway option’ would still be significant.''

http://www.cbi.org.uk/global-future/case_study06_norway.html

''The countries are allowed to participate as observers in some bodies. For instance in 2005 Iceland had access to 418 committees and specialists’ advisory bodies, although they participated in only 184 of them.[17] This access has, however, been reduced over time and there has been a gradual shift towards a much narrower interpretation on the EU side resulting in the exclusion of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein from many committees and advisory bodies in which they had participated previously.[18]

Added to that, the EEA is becoming increasingly less important to the EU. EU foreign ministers, for example, rarely show up for meetings in the EEA Council as was expected in the beginning. And increasingly the European Commission ‘forgets’ to involve specialists from the EFTA EEA states when new legislation is being prepared.''

Despite the drawbacks I am not inherently opposed to the Norway option. I just recognise that it is no real change.

NickPalmer said:

asjohnstone said:

I think I disagree about the lack of value in Trump's price.

If it comes to a brokered convention Trump the guy with all the cards, he is the only one that can, and will, run as a third party candidate on the basis of betrayal. His line is "give it to me or I'll bring the whole thing down in flames around me"

They may not *like* him bit they *loathe* Hilary. He's not going to blink, if he has the most delegates, he's the guy.

Elaborating, look at the schedule:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

On the Democrat side, Sanders will get a boost today in Maine, but Michigan is his best chance to slow the Clinton juggernaut, and he probably won't quite succeed. But on the GOP side, Tuesday has Michigan, which Kasich could well win (2 points ahead in latest poll) and endorsed by the leading local paper) and Mississippi, which Trump has leading in by 41-17 last month, but should now be closer. March 15 has three big winner-takes-all/most states, FL, OH and IL. Kasich should now take OH. The other two, who knows now. And then we move on to big northern and western states where Trump is generally not as strong.

The path to a Trump majority is difficult, and getting e.g. Rubio supporters to back him after all he's said about Rubio will be really hard unless he's been winning recent primaries, such as California. I don't think Trump should be better than evens (disclosure: I have a £30 lay on him).

Trump will win New York and Pennsylvania against Cruz and probably California too, although that would be closer. The key now will be Michigan on Tuesday and Ohio and Florida on Tuesday week, if Trump wins those states and beats Kasich and Rubio in their home states then they both drop out and it is Trump v Cruz, most likely until Wisconsin, New York and Pennsylvania vote at the end of April where Trump victories over Cruz would effectively seal the nomination for him

SeanT said:

Roger said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

Good morning and tashi delek from beautifully weird Bhutan. Incredible place.

Almost as incredible is the news that Number 10 agitated to get the eurosceptic BCC Chairman suspended. Wtf is the government doing? Are they so terrified of losing the referendum they don't care about the aftermath? It's unbelievably short sighted.

REMAIN are very likely to win. They don't need to do this. Yet they are carefully constructing a myth of a conspiracy and a stab-in-the-back that betrayed a patriotic cause. Last time this happened we got Nazi Germany. A much milder form of this utterly destroyed Scottish Labour.

Remarkable.

Referenda kill parties.

They do so, because like a pressure valve, they release the truth that parties are not coherent, stable things and that there is often more tension within parties than between them. They are bombs waiting to go off.

Cameron finally has a chance to defeat the people who have been causing him the most trouble for 10 years. I expect he wants to annihilate them.

I think you're right. Unlike those who think this'll go the Scottish way and the winners will end up losers I think it'll go the Stalin route. A big REMAIN win it will be seen as a glorious victory for Cameron/Osborne and there will a purge of the 'LEAVERS' that will see the end of 'Boris and the Bastards' for a generation.

(The Tories might even end up a mainstream centrist party who normal people can vote for)

Lol. Rogerdamus strikes again. Infallible.

Btw how do you "purge" 60-70% of your members and half your MPs? It's like asking a surgeon to amputate your own head.

LOL

Ben Riley Smith
NEW -- Twice as many Tory local chairmen back Brexit than staying in EU, BBC survey reveals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12185065/Twice-as-many-Tory-local-chairmen-back-Brexit-than-staying-in-EU-survey-reveals.html