Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
NAFTA is nothing like the EU and I'd like to know what "sovereignty" Canada has given up to the USA. I've just returned from another trip to Canada (relatives there) and they're fiercely independent of their southern neighbours. Biggest joke at the moment is that if America is going to start building walls then they'd like a wall building to keep the Americans out and when will they start?
The EU dictates policy on things like how many hours per week someone can work, how many weeks holiday employees get, agriculture subsidies, fishing policies, etc, etc - where do the Americans dictate that to the Canadians? They're all issues the Canadians can decide for themselves as we could too if we were in the EFTA.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
This weekend sees elections in three German Lander: Baden-Wurttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt.
How will Mrs Merkel's CDU perform?
In Baden-Wurttemberg, there is currently a Green-SPD coaliton, and the Greens continue to be leading in the polls. The CDU is only marginally behind the Greens in the polls, and the SPD has fallen off. The AfD is unlikely to come better than fourth here, and will quite likely be in single figures. It is possible that the CDU will overhaul the Greens and come off with an unlikely victory her.
Rhineland-Palatinate is perhaps more interesting. (It's currently an SPD-Green coalition.) In all likelihood, only the CDU, the SPD and the AfD will reach the 5% threshold for representation. (The AfD is on about 8% in the polls with both the CDU and the SPD on around 35%.) What coalition will come out of this is unclear. Could it be a CDU-AfD one? That would shake things up.
Lastly and most interestingly is Saxony-Anhalt. The first placed party will be the CDU, on 30-33% of the vote. But there's a big fight for second place with three parties in the high teens: the Leftists, the SPD and AfD. It's quite possible that the AfD will place second here, which would be a fantastic result for them.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Yes, let me dig them up.
Here:
Total export of goods (2015):
£304bn
EU:
£133bn (including re-exports to non-EU territories that go via Rotterdam)
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
NAFTA is nothing like the EU and I'd like to know what "sovereignty" Canada has given up to the USA. I've just returned from another trip to Canada (relatives there) and they're fiercely independent of their southern neighbours. Biggest joke at the moment is that if America is going to start building walls then they'd like a wall building to keep the Americans out and when will they start?
The EU dictates policy on things like how many hours per week someone can work, how many weeks holiday employees get, agriculture subsidies, fishing policies, etc, etc - where do the Americans dictate that to the Canadians? They're all issues the Canadians can decide for themselves as we could too if we were in the EFTA.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
There's a case for that, but we'd still get much of the meddling with no say in it, no institutional protection from Eurozone hegemony, and no influence over EU strategic direction (in particular protectionism). On the positive side we'd get out of the CFP and CAP, and possibly some of the social/environmental/justice stuff, although I think many Leavers are kidding themselves on the extent to which those would be different. In addition we'd save a few billion in fees. Is that trade-off worth it, especially given the severe dangers of the transition? It's a judgement call, obviously. Personally I don't think so, but I understand that others will give a different weight to the various factors.
If as you've quoted the Five Presidents texts expect "All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States ..." are participating and writing the rules for the four unions then we'll have no say anyway. You seem to be having your cake and eating it too in suggesting that the EU have given up in involving us and are deeply involving us simultaneously.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Yes, let me dig them up.
Here:
Total export of goods (2015):
£304bn
EU:
£133bn (including re-exports to non-EU territories that go via Rotterdam)
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
Exactly. Or incandescent lightbulbs, fast boiling kettles and hundreds of other tiny things
Those won't change in the EEA/EFTA option. In fact, I can't imagine they'd change in any scenario. The idea that we would set up our own product type-approval standards, just for the UK, is implausible.
Much like Canada, for that matter:
How will Canada’s lighting standards compare to the United States?
The proposed amendment to the lighting performance standards in Canada will be the same as those in the United States. The United States started implementing their standards in 2012, but by the end of 2014 both countries will have the same standards in effect.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
But we'd only need to implement the rules for EU trade rather than bind our domestic markets with EU red tape.
If as you've quoted the Five Presidents texts expect "All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States ..." are participating and writing the rules for the four unions then we'll have no say anyway. You seem to be having your cake and eating it too in suggesting that the EU have given up in involving us and are deeply involving us simultaneously.
No, because we'll have a say in those things which affect us directly, and we'll have the institutional protection arising from the treaty rules on non-discrimination. In that respect, unambiguously better than the EEA/EFTA route.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
'Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time'
And that trend is certain to continue - which is also a key point. The EU's share of world GDP and trade is going to keep shrinking.
On the pure economics it makes no sense to be in a preferential trading agreement with a slow-growth, declining area. And if that deal also involves massive curbs on our self-government it makes even less sense.
The balance of costs and benefits has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The EU might still have made sense for the UK then, on net. It doesn't now and will make even less sense 10-15 years from now.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We get ignored now, look at the directive on "energy saving for small appliances" it is wholly and completely in favour of German manufacturers. Look at the directive on vehicle emissions, it is completely in favour of diesel cars ahead of hybrid and electric cars where our government has incentives available.
Our interests are not aligned with the EU so we have no influence.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Inga Beale CEO of Lloyds of London gave a very calm and reasoned account last night towards the end of Newsnight of why leaving will be disadvantageous for her industry. Those of a more open mind should try and catch in on i-player.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
Except product-type regulations are typically globalised now anyway and largely developed by independent standard setting organisations like the IEEE. That is why many products are stamped as both FCC and CE certified.
The red tape that goes above and beyond that is redundant though and would be stripped away.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Inga Beale CEO of Lloyds of London gave a very calm and reasoned account last night towards the end of Newsnight of why leaving will be disadvantageous for her industry. Those of a more open mind should try and catch in on i-player.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We get ignored now, look at the directive on "energy saving for small appliances" it is wholly and completely in favour of German manufacturers. Look at the directive on vehicle emissions, it is completely in favour of diesel cars ahead of hybrid and electric cars where our government has incentives available.
Our interests are not aligned with the EU so we have no influence.
So why are we worrying about EU rules for the manufacture of domestic appliances if they are all German anyway?
I find it difficult to accept that we have more influence on EU trading rules outside the EU than we do inside.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Inga Beale CEO of Lloyds of London gave a very calm and reasoned account last night towards the end of Newsnight of why leaving will be disadvantageous for her industry. Those of a more open mind should try and catch in on i-player.
Square wheels would be better than round in that situation.
Daft comments by the BoE governor. Being in a free trade area has clearly benefited us - nobody is doubting this.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
The governor of the BoE The Chancellor The PM The Leader of the opposition The Leader of the Lib Dems The Leader of the Greens The Leader of the SNP The Leader of the Scottish Tories The Leader of Scottish Labour Leader of DUP Leader of UUP Leader of SDLP Leader of Sinn Fein The Leader of the Welsh Tories The Leader of Welsh Labour Plaid Cumru
Against
The Leader of UKIP The Leader of Respect Mayor of London Minister without Portfolio Minister for the Bedroom Tax Minister who wants to bring back hanging
Just reading the summary of Carney's evidence today 'live' on the Guardian web pages and he seems to making the case for remain even though he says he is neutral. It will be interesting to see how the pro Brexit papers, mail, express and telegraph, report his comments and more so the BBC and Sky
I discovered a useful portal outlining candidates' stance re a number of single issues for POTUS election which each may have a significance in state outcomes.In support of the Lib Dems getting it right on cannabis policy,here are the views of POTUS candidates on drug policy.In key states like Florida and Ohio recent plebiscites,one on medical cannabis,one on full legalisation,both on cannabis might just swing a swing state.Elizabeth Warren has added to the debate and has come out vocally that the only way to tackle the heroin explosion killing more people in the USA than are killed on its roads,is medical cannabis.
Anyone who is having a punt on state betting need to realise this is a $3 billion legal business and is seen as a major threat by Big Alcohol and Big Pharma.There are plenty of sites outling each states' progress toward the end of prohibition but they are going down one by one like ninepins.A key issue especially in Oregon,Washington DC,Colorado and California. POTUS candidates would be well advised to make the trend their friend. http://www.ontheissues.org/Drugs.htm
If as you've quoted the Five Presidents texts expect "All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States ..." are participating and writing the rules for the four unions then we'll have no say anyway. You seem to be having your cake and eating it too in suggesting that the EU have given up in involving us and are deeply involving us simultaneously.
No, because we'll have a say in those things which affect us directly, and we'll have the institutional protection arising from the treaty rules on non-discrimination. In that respect, unambiguously better than the EEA/EFTA route.
It is entirely ambiguous as nobody has demonstrated yet what "say" we have in the subset of those things which affect us directly in the EEA as well as the EU and the field of issues which affect us directly is vastly greater in the EU and then EEA/EFTA. For the subset of issues which affect us in the EU but not in the EEA/EFTA we would have 100% power to set our rules and regulations if we left.
If the regulations for instance are set by organisations like the IEEE and ratified by the CE and FCC then we have zero say whether in or out. But for the associated red tape we'd have more say out.
Mr. Eagles, shade surprised to be patronised by you over this. If you disagree with my argument, fair enough, but just taking someone's (Carney's, in this case) word for something because of their job is akin to mindlessly following what a priest says instead of engaging your own critical faculties.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
From the Guardian live blog, no wonder my friend was recommending Remain after all
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
Just out of interest, when does Carney's 4 year(?) contract as BoE Governor come to an end? - I distinctly remember him, or more particularly his wife stating that there were absolutely no circumstances under which they would extend their stay beyond that term.
The governor of the BoE The Chancellor The PM The Leader of the opposition The Leader of the Lib Dems The Leader of the Greens The Leader of the SNP The Leader of the Scottish Tories The Leader of Scottish Labour Leader of DUP Leader of UUP Leader of SDLP Leader of Sinn Fein The Leader of the Welsh Tories The Leader of Welsh Labour Plaid Cumru
Against
The Leader of UKIP The Leader of Respect Mayor of London Minister without Portfolio Minister for the Bedroom Tax Minister who wants to bring back hanging
That's all folks!
And Zac. How could we forget our 8th favourite OE?
(and speaking of which, Tom Hiddleston is becoming quite Meryl Streep-like in playing Tom Hiddleston...will The Night Manager never end??)
From the Guardian live blog, no wonder my friend was recommending Remain after all
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
Just out of interest, when does Carney's 4 year(?) contractas BoE Governor come to an end? - I distinctly remember him, or more particularly his wife stating that there were absolutely no circumstances under which they would extend their stay beyond that term.
Daft comments by the BoE governor. Being in a free trade area has clearly benefited us - nobody is doubting this.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We get ignored now, look at the directive on "energy saving for small appliances" it is wholly and completely in favour of German manufacturers. Look at the directive on vehicle emissions, it is completely in favour of diesel cars ahead of hybrid and electric cars where our government has incentives available.
Our interests are not aligned with the EU so we have no influence.
So why are we worrying about EU rules for the manufacture of domestic appliances if they are all German anyway?
I find it difficult to accept that we have more influence on EU trading rules outside the EU than we do inside.
No, my point is that we already have no influence, especially in matters where our interests are paramount (City regulation) and we are facing a hostile crowd.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
NAFTA is nothing like the EU and I'd like to know what "sovereignty" Canada has given up to the USA. I've just returned from another trip to Canada (relatives there) and they're fiercely independent of their southern neighbours. Biggest joke at the moment is that if America is going to start building walls then they'd like a wall building to keep the Americans out and when will they start?
The EU dictates policy on things like how many hours per week someone can work, how many weeks holiday employees get, agriculture subsidies, fishing policies, etc, etc - where do the Americans dictate that to the Canadians? They're all issues the Canadians can decide for themselves as we could too if we were in the EFTA.
Only an idiot would waste money on incandescent lightbulbs now LEDs are so good.
Mr. Eagles, shade surprised to be patronised by you over this. If you disagree with my argument, fair enough, but just taking someone's (Carney's, in this case) word for something because of their job is akin to mindlessly following what a priest says instead of engaging your own critical faculties.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
It wasn't my intention to patronise you, for that impression, I apologise.
My friend who works in the financial services industry, says we may have to cede sovereignty to get access to the single market/maintain the financial passport.
In this instance we need them more than they need us, so they could demand more from us, and that includes us giving up some of sovereignty/control in exchange for access.
The governor of the BoE The Chancellor The PM The Leader of the opposition The Leader of the Lib Dems The Leader of the Greens The Leader of the SNP The Leader of the Scottish Tories The Leader of Scottish Labour Leader of DUP Leader of UUP Leader of SDLP Leader of Sinn Fein The Leader of the Welsh Tories The Leader of Welsh Labour Plaid Cumru
Against
The Leader of UKIP The Leader of Respect Mayor of London Minister without Portfolio Minister for the Bedroom Tax Minister who wants to bring back hanging
That's all folks!
Although I'm with you Roger on this I thought the DUP were outers!
Daft comments by the BoE governor. Being in a free trade area has clearly benefited us - nobody is doubting this.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
Daft comments by the BoE governor. Being in a free trade area has clearly benefited us - nobody is doubting this.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
So far they haven't. Now or never guys!!
You did ask me how I was leaning at present and I have to say Carney's comments today are very thought provoking and really it is sufficient for me to move to remain, unless leave can come up with a realistic alternative and be able to authoritatively refute the Governor's comments.
Mr. Eagles, sentiment can go missing or get mangled over the internet, so don't worry about it.
Some concessions may be needed, but the idea we'd concede more being outside than inside is irrational.
The EU is obviously a larger market than the UK, but there are numerous reasons why playing excessively hard would be bad for them. Whilst there's no, or a limited, deal, major exporters in the EU will suffer. Perhaps more seriously, a deal is necessary because Ireland does so much trade with us they'll be desperate for a deal to be done.
Lastly, if you're in a club and the first response to potentially leaving is to be threatened, the club clearly doesn't have your best interests at heart.
The EU and UK have drastically different priorities and outlooks. Better for both if we leave.
From the Guardian live blog, no wonder my friend was recommending Remain after all
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
To protect the current business.
But the EU is a small part of the overall City business.
And we are getting killed by having to apply European rules to our business in international markets. In addition there is other regulation that they are imposing that is just garbage, and positively harmful garbage.
Mr. Eagles, shade surprised to be patronised by you over this. If you disagree with my argument, fair enough, but just taking someone's (Carney's, in this case) word for something because of their job is akin to mindlessly following what a priest says instead of engaging your own critical faculties.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
It wasn't my intention to patronise you, for that impression, I apologise.
My friend who works in the financial services industry, says we may have to cede sovereignty to get access to the single market/maintain the financial passport.
In this instance we need them more than they need us, so they could demand more from us, and that includes us giving up some of sovereignty/control in exchange for access.
But this fails to take into account the 40 plus years of accumulated sovereignty grabs that would be getting reversed if we leave.
Yes we likely may negotiate on some issues but that will end up as less than the status quo ante.
I see we can add the Bank of England governor to the list of relatively disinterested figures who the Leave camp want to rubbish because he has inconvenient views.
Mr. Eagles, shade surprised to be patronised by you over this. If you disagree with my argument, fair enough, but just taking someone's (Carney's, in this case) word for something because of their job is akin to mindlessly following what a priest says instead of engaging your own critical faculties.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
It wasn't my intention to patronise you, for that impression, I apologise.
My friend who works in the financial services industry, says we may have to cede sovereignty to get access to the single market/maintain the financial passport.
In this instance we need them more than they need us, so they could demand more from us, and that includes us giving up some of sovereignty/control in exchange for access.
In order to maintain passport rights I have no doubt we would cede sovereignty. However, compared to today it would be nowhere near as much. On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is complete sovereignty we currently sit at say 4 overall and about 2 with regard to the City. If we left the 4 becomes more like 8 and the 2 stays the same in order to maintain passport rights. So yes, we would cede sovereignty over financial regulations but it would be no different to today. The only meaningful change would be to get a internal markets or financial regulation veto, since that isn't on the table I'll take less meddling in the rest of the country and just keep the City on the same track to get passport rights.
I see we can add the Bank of England governor to the list of relatively disinterested figures who the Leave camp want to rubbish because he has inconvenient views.
While Remain seem to be discounting and ignoring the long standing ex governor Mervyn King because of his inconvenient views.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
Carney's got an agenda. (One of my cousins knows him extremely well)
Yes, it ise Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We get ignored now, look at the directive on "energy saving for small appliances" it is wholly and completely in favour of German manufacturers. Look at the directive on vehicle emissions, it is completely in favour of diesel cars ahead of hybrid and electric cars where our government has incentives available.
Our interests are not aligned with the EU so we have no influence.
So why are we worrying about EU rules for the manufacture of domestic appliances if they are all German anyway?
I find it difficult to accept that we have more influence on EU trading rules outside the EU than we do inside.
No, my point is that we already have no influence, especially in matters where our interests are paramount (City regulation) and we are facing a hostile crowd.
You are wrong about City regulation. The FCA was instrumental in helping to define the contents of MiFID II.
I still don't understand the argument that goes: we have no influence inside the EU to formulate rules of trading inter- and intra-EU, therefore we will leave the EU where we will have....um....no influence.
I also of course dispute the idea that we have no influence.
I'm kind of capitivated at the thought of David Herdson as a latterday Sir Ian Gilmour. Of course there are similarities: as is well known the late Sir Ian had a broad Bradford accent which he deployed to great effect in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet. And they are both of a similar height.
Gilmour did very well considering he went to Balliol
Mr. Eagles, shade surprised to be patronised by you over this. If you disagree with my argument, fair enough, but just taking someone's (Carney's, in this case) word for something because of their job is akin to mindlessly following what a priest says instead of engaging your own critical faculties.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
It wasn't my intention to patronise you, for that impression, I apologise.
My friend who works in the financial services industry, says we may have to cede sovereignty to get access to the single market/maintain the financial passport.
In this instance we need them more than they need us, so they could demand more from us, and that includes us giving up some of sovereignty/control in exchange for access.
You are so correct you begin to wonder why you have to explain it.
From the Guardian live blog, no wonder my friend was recommending Remain after all
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
To protect the current business.
But the EU is a small part of the overall City business.
And we are getting killed by having to apply European rules to our business in international markets. In addition there is other regulation that they are imposing that is just garbage, and positively harmful garbage.
If that's a plea to further deregulate banks I think it'll be a tough sell!
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
From the Guardian live blog, no wonder my friend was recommending Remain after all
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
To protect the current business.
But the EU is a small part of the overall City business.
And we are getting killed by having to apply European rules to our business in international markets. In addition there is other regulation that they are imposing that is just garbage, and positively harmful garbage.
If that's a plea to further deregulate banks I think it'll be a tough sell!
No, it's a plea for appropriate, well-designed regulation.
Since people seem to like Mark Carney, here are the BofE's views on one piece of EU inspired regulation
Europe’s bonus cap has driven up salaries in banks and made top bankers’ pay less flexible, making banks and the financial system more fragile, according to regulators
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
Telegraph Boris Johnson soars into double digit lead as favourite to be next Conservative leader https://t.co/atpUokzsgR
I don't want this result
Lol there's a referendum for him to win first and judging by his waffling on the Marr show there's not much chance of that happening if he takes up the lead role for the quitters.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
Carney's got an agenda. (One of my cousins knows him extremely well)
Silly comment. 'Nod nod wink winks' don't work. It just sounds pretentious
A few months ago there was a furore over the Tampon Tax. My wife was greatly offended by the notion that a tampon is a luxury item that should have VAT as opposed to a necessity.
Being in the EU means we are required to charge VAT on such a basic hygiene product.
Leaving the EU may mean we don't change the standards to which they are made but the added red tape including a requirement to tax them can change. That is the difference. Not everything is about standards of production.
Daft comments by the BoE governor. Being in a free trade area has clearly benefited us - nobody is doubting this.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
So far they haven't. Now or never guys!!
Well jonisbackis not making any sort of case. Nor are you. Joining EEA/EFTA means obeying single market regulations and free movement. So the 'free trade area' stuff is just a mirage a smokescreen. It all boils down to the single market and so means no difference at all, especially to migration which is the big scare the leavers are trying on. And the really nasty side of Leave are trying to tar the EU with the Syrian crisis which since we are not in Schengen is not part of our remit. Norway is suffering more than us from that link.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
Telegraph Boris Johnson soars into double digit lead as favourite to be next Conservative leader https://t.co/atpUokzsgR
I don't want this result
I don't think ConHome is a good guide to the views of ordinary party members.
Back to this comment
"I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not""
Do you accept that this was wrong and that people were actually talking about the immigration figures based on NI numbers which have indeed been concealed deliberately by the Government?
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
We currently have no say in US regulations and sell to the US.
Increasingly product specifications are set by international standard setters - where the UK is a leader, by the way, though BSI. Occasionally national governments will intervene to try an bias things in favour of their national industries, but we need to deal with that anyway.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
Carney's got an agenda. (One of my cousins knows him extremely well)
Of course he has - otherwise how could he possibly not playing for Leave
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
So what?
Let's suppose there is an EU-initiative to ensure that widget manufacturers can only sell into the EU if they have a certain emissions standard for a gas. Let's suppose that most manufacturers in the EU emit x of the gas and in the UK it is 1.1x of the gas. At the negotiating table, while the standards are set, we can argue to allow emissions of 1.1x to be the EU standard.
Now, you can argue that they would ignore us. And well they might. But do you think there is more chance of them ignoring us if we are in or out of the EU?
"I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not""
Do you accept that this was wrong and that people were actually talking about the immigration figures based on NI numbers which have indeed been concealed deliberately by the Government?
You are right that people were talking about (legal) EU immigration numbers, but I have also seen suggestions that this is something to do with illegal migrants getting NI numbers. I was wrong to conflate the two, they are separate things as you say.
The NI numbers themselves have not been concealed, deliberately or otherwise. They have been published. The relation they bear to the immigration figures is another and not simple matter - they measure different things, as Cameron explained at PMQs.
'it was a cock-up' says Boris. Oh dear so all those defending the memo earlier today are covered in crap. Heigh ho - this is the man some think should be PM
Court News Witness asked if printed statement is right tells hearing: 'No it isn't, there's several spelling mistakes and loads of grammatical errors'.
Natalie McGarry is the typical student activist that never grew up. It must have come as quite a shock to her that there are consequences to her childish behaviour.
"Mr Khan is getting twice as many second preference votes from backers of smaller parties, putting him on course to win the run-off by a 10-point margin of 55-45."
Sadiq Khan looks to be cruising to victory at present.
Mr. Eagles, Carney's suggestion that leaving the EU means ceding more sovereignty than being part of it, or that the City would be better protected being completely subject to rules we cannot determine or veto than not being in that situation, is literally incredible.
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
With the greatest of respect, I'm going to trust the Governor of the Bank of England and those who work in the Financial Services industry than you on this matter.
Carney's got an agenda. (One of my cousins knows him extremely well)
Silly comment. 'Nod nod wink winks' don't work. It just sounds pretentious
Carney wants to renew his contract, which is in Osborne's gift.
I will admit, that we were much closer to with Eddie George, who was a personal friend of my father, and perfectly cordial with Mervyn King, than with Mark Carney. But one of my cousins is very close to him on a personal and professional level and discusses all these issues with him in detail.
I am fortunate in that I do pick up snippets of what goes on - and probably post far too much detail on here - but for various reasons my family does have excellent access to a lot of interesting people.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
And less input into single market rules.
Except if the Euro Area are not seeking to involve us in the rule making as Mr Nabavi just quoted the five presidents text as stating then we have no input anyway.
Let's come back to our widgets and UK manufacturers exporting into the EU. At present we get a say on widget specification regulations and can argue the case for rules which benefit UK-based manufacturers. Outside we wouldn't.
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
We manage to sell widgets perfectly well to the US or Japan. We can sell to the EU as well.
Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets. EU approval would come with adherence to the EU rules about widgets. EU rules about widgets would be formulated by...the EU. And we would be outside the EU.
So what?
Let's suppose there is an EU-initiative to ensure that widget manufacturers can only sell into the EU if they have a certain emissions standard for a gas. Let's suppose that most manufacturers in the EU emit x of the gas and in the UK it is 1.1x of the gas. At the negotiating table, while the standards are set, we can argue to allow emissions of 1.1x to be the EU standard.
Now, you can argue that they would ignore us. And well they might. But do you think there is more chance of them ignoring us if we are in or out of the EU?
Which is exactly what happened with the small appliances directive, we argued our case and got duly ignored.
'Of course we can sell them to the EU. But they would need to be EU-approved widgets'
That's what happens with exports to the US as well. So what?
So what is that no-one seriously suggests we'd have our own, non-EU widget rules. So EU rules will continue to apply in the domestic UK market, in or out.
The survey reveals that Londoners are evenly split by Mr Goldsmith’s controversial charge that Mr Khan is “radical and divisive”, with 29 per cent agreeing and 27 per cent disagreeing.
On Mr Khan’s counter-charge that his opponent was guilty of “coded racism”, 34 per cent agree and 25 per cent disagree.
"I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not""
Do you accept that this was wrong and that people were actually talking about the immigration figures based on NI numbers which have indeed been concealed deliberately by the Government?
You are right that people were talking about (legal) EU immigration numbers, but I have also seen suggestions that this is something to do with illegal migrants getting NI numbers. I was wrong to conflate the two, they are separate things as you say.
The NI numbers themselves have not been concealed, deliberately or otherwise. They have been published. The relation they bear to the immigration figures is another and not simple matter - they measure different things, as Cameron explained at PMQs.
Ah rewatching the interview, Jonathan Portes said that as the PM knew the number of EU migrants that were claiming benefits, the number that were paying tax must be known by HMRC as it is the same computer system; that would give us a much better idea of the true immigration figures, and that is the information that the govt are refusing to reveal. initially because it would "influence the renegotiation", and now because it would cost 2k
Comments
Galton and Simpson couldn't have invented the 'Leave' campaign
The EU dictates policy on things like how many hours per week someone can work, how many weeks holiday employees get, agriculture subsidies, fishing policies, etc, etc - where do the Americans dictate that to the Canadians? They're all issues the Canadians can decide for themselves as we could too if we were in the EFTA.
This weekend sees elections in three German Lander: Baden-Wurttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt.
How will Mrs Merkel's CDU perform?
In Baden-Wurttemberg, there is currently a Green-SPD coaliton, and the Greens continue to be leading in the polls. The CDU is only marginally behind the Greens in the polls, and the SPD has fallen off. The AfD is unlikely to come better than fourth here, and will quite likely be in single figures. It is possible that the CDU will overhaul the Greens and come off with an unlikely victory her.
Rhineland-Palatinate is perhaps more interesting. (It's currently an SPD-Green coalition.) In all likelihood, only the CDU, the SPD and the AfD will reach the 5% threshold for representation. (The AfD is on about 8% in the polls with both the CDU and the SPD on around 35%.) What coalition will come out of this is unclear. Could it be a CDU-AfD one? That would shake things up.
Lastly and most interestingly is Saxony-Anhalt. The first placed party will be the CDU, on 30-33% of the vote. But there's a big fight for second place with three parties in the high teens: the Leftists, the SPD and AfD. It's quite possible that the AfD will place second here, which would be a fantastic result for them.
Here:
Total export of goods (2015):
£304bn
EU:
£133bn (including re-exports to non-EU territories that go via Rotterdam)
Non-EU:
£171bn
Total export of services (2014):
£120bn
EU:
£59bn
Non-EU:
£61bn
Source: HMRC/ONS
Or, of course, trading in stocks and shares but we have been round the houses on that one.
Much like Canada, for that matter:
How will Canada’s lighting standards compare to the United States?
The proposed amendment to the lighting performance standards in Canada will be the same as those in the United States. The United States started implementing their standards in 2012, but by the end of 2014 both countries will have the same standards in effect.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/7281#c
Michael Bloomberg will not run for president as independent
(Apols if posted previously)
If we left the EU the City-EU situation would be akin to the City-US situation.
And that trend is certain to continue - which is also a key point. The EU's share of world GDP and trade is going to keep shrinking.
On the pure economics it makes no sense to be in a preferential trading agreement with a slow-growth, declining area. And if that deal also involves massive curbs on our self-government it makes even less sense.
The balance of costs and benefits has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The EU might still have made sense for the UK then, on net. It doesn't now and will make even less sense 10-15 years from now.
Has anyone come up with a single example of a product made in the UK not for export?
Our interests are not aligned with the EU so we have no influence.
When someone says something that makes no sense, it just undermines their credibility.
It gives me a headache
http://order-order.com/2016/03/08/yvettes-refugee-car-crash-pledge-to-foster-syrian-unfulfilled/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35746909
The red tape that goes above and beyond that is redundant though and would be stripped away.
I do object to claims we're going to Hell in a hand cart with square wheels if we vote Leave.
I find it difficult to accept that we have more influence on EU trading rules outside the EU than we do inside.
The q is surely whether we would be better off being in a free trade area and NOT embroiled in the rest of the EU.
And the critical urgent q for Leave is whether that is a realistic option, i.e. what would life outside the EU look like, and could we really keep the good bits and ditch the bad?
I suspect there is a majority for this if they could only make a convincing case.
So far they haven't. Now or never guys!!
The governor of the BoE
The Chancellor
The PM
The Leader of the opposition
The Leader of the Lib Dems
The Leader of the Greens
The Leader of the SNP
The Leader of the Scottish Tories
The Leader of Scottish Labour
Leader of DUP
Leader of UUP
Leader of SDLP
Leader of Sinn Fein
The Leader of the Welsh Tories
The Leader of Welsh Labour
Plaid Cumru
Against
The Leader of UKIP
The Leader of Respect
Mayor of London
Minister without Portfolio
Minister for the Bedroom Tax
Minister who wants to bring back hanging
That's all folks!
Anyone who is having a punt on state betting need to realise this is a $3 billion legal business and is seen as a major threat by Big Alcohol and Big Pharma.There are plenty of sites outling each states' progress toward the end of prohibition but they are going down one by one like ninepins.A key issue especially in Oregon,Washington DC,Colorado and California.
POTUS candidates would be well advised to make the trend their friend.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Drugs.htm
If the regulations for instance are set by organisations like the IEEE and ratified by the CE and FCC then we have zero say whether in or out. But for the associated red tape we'd have more say out.
Do you actually believe we'll cede more sovereignty to the EU if we leave it than if we stay in?
[It's also worth reminding people that many of the great and the good thought we should join the euro...].
(and speaking of which, Tom Hiddleston is becoming quite Meryl Streep-like in playing Tom Hiddleston...will The Night Manager never end??)
My friend who works in the financial services industry, says we may have to cede sovereignty to get access to the single market/maintain the financial passport.
In this instance we need them more than they need us, so they could demand more from us, and that includes us giving up some of sovereignty/control in exchange for access.
Some concessions may be needed, but the idea we'd concede more being outside than inside is irrational.
The EU is obviously a larger market than the UK, but there are numerous reasons why playing excessively hard would be bad for them. Whilst there's no, or a limited, deal, major exporters in the EU will suffer. Perhaps more seriously, a deal is necessary because Ireland does so much trade with us they'll be desperate for a deal to be done.
Lastly, if you're in a club and the first response to potentially leaving is to be threatened, the club clearly doesn't have your best interests at heart.
The EU and UK have drastically different priorities and outlooks. Better for both if we leave.
But the EU is a small part of the overall City business.
And we are getting killed by having to apply European rules to our business in international markets. In addition there is other regulation that they are imposing that is just garbage, and positively harmful garbage.
Yes we likely may negotiate on some issues but that will end up as less than the status quo ante.
Boris Johnson soars into double digit lead as favourite to be next Conservative leader https://t.co/atpUokzsgR
I don't want this result
I still don't understand the argument that goes: we have no influence inside the EU to formulate rules of trading inter- and intra-EU, therefore we will leave the EU where we will have....um....no influence.
I also of course dispute the idea that we have no influence.
Since people seem to like Mark Carney, here are the BofE's views on one piece of EU inspired regulation
Europe’s bonus cap has driven up salaries in banks and made top bankers’ pay less flexible, making banks and the financial system more fragile, according to regulators
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/12052055/Bankers-bonus-cap-drives-up-salaries-says-Bank-of-England.html
the "right" answer is long deferrals, significant non-cash components, clawbacks and - if you can make them work - maluses. Not caps.
'The Five Presidents text is pretty significant. '
Gives a whole new meaning to jobs for the boys,how on earth can the US survive with only one president.
Being in the EU means we are required to charge VAT on such a basic hygiene product.
Leaving the EU may mean we don't change the standards to which they are made but the added red tape including a requirement to tax them can change. That is the difference. Not everything is about standards of production.
Joining EEA/EFTA means obeying single market regulations and free movement. So the 'free trade area' stuff is just a mirage a smokescreen. It all boils down to the single market and so means no difference at all, especially to migration which is the big scare the leavers are trying on. And the really nasty side of Leave are trying to tar the EU with the Syrian crisis which since we are not in Schengen is not part of our remit.
Norway is suffering more than us from that link.
I'll get my coat.
"I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not""
Do you accept that this was wrong and that people were actually talking about the immigration figures based on NI numbers which have indeed been concealed deliberately by the Government?
That's what happens with exports to the US as well. So what?
@JamieRoss7: Natalie McGarry seems to have deleted Twitter again. https://t.co/r3mTL29LSA https://t.co/ogWADGeQGE
@AgentP22: Some home truths about Natalie McGarry. https://t.co/tnfhppqCLj
Increasingly product specifications are set by international standard setters - where the UK is a leader, by the way, though BSI. Occasionally national governments will intervene to try an bias things in favour of their national industries, but we need to deal with that anyway.
As of today, Ann Clwyd, Labour MP for Cynon Valley, becomes the oldest ever serving female MP, overtaking the record of Dame Irene Ward
@ConHistGrp Record for longest-lived woman to have been MP is still held by Norah Runge, Con MP for Rotherhithe 1931-35, died age 93 in 1978
Now, you can argue that they would ignore us. And well they might. But do you think there is more chance of them ignoring us if we are in or out of the EU?
The NI numbers themselves have not been concealed, deliberately or otherwise. They have been published. The relation they bear to the immigration figures is another and not simple matter - they measure different things, as Cameron explained at PMQs.
'it was a cock-up' says Boris. Oh dear so all those defending the memo earlier today are covered in crap. Heigh ho - this is the man some think should be PM
Court News
Witness asked if printed statement is right tells hearing: 'No it isn't, there's several spelling mistakes and loads of grammatical errors'.
And Lord King happens to be genuinely British as well.
"Mr Khan is getting twice as many second preference votes from backers of smaller parties, putting him on course to win the run-off by a 10-point margin of 55-45."
Sadiq Khan looks to be cruising to victory at present.
I will admit, that we were much closer to with Eddie George, who was a personal friend of my father, and perfectly cordial with Mervyn King, than with Mark Carney. But one of my cousins is very close to him on a personal and professional level and discusses all these issues with him in detail.
I am fortunate in that I do pick up snippets of what goes on - and probably post far too much detail on here - but for various reasons my family does have excellent access to a lot of interesting people.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-leads-rival-by-five-points-in-mayor-race-a3198231.html
New ABC/WaPo poll: Clinton leads Sanders 49-42, 1st time her support has slipped below 50% https://t.co/so3g3neWp6 https://t.co/weMELiVLNQ
On Mr Khan’s counter-charge that his opponent was guilty of “coded racism”, 34 per cent agree and 25 per cent disagree.
@politicshome: Mark Carney accuses Jacob Rees-Mogg of "selective memory" after Tory MP accused him of "political partisanship".