Haven’t TTIP negotiations run aground? And there’s every chance a post-Brexit UK would sign up to a TTIP-style agreement…
With respect to the discussion about hypocrisy and bullshitting above, there’s a fun article in the Guardian here examining the (trivial) claim that “More countries outside the EU have won than those inside”. It then goes on to show that this statement is wrong in several ways and also perfectly right. All in service of the point that it is ludicrously easy to take the same set of objective facts and spin them in a way that suits your side. It finishes with examples from both sides of precisely this over-enthusiastic interpretation:
Indeed, but it would be negotiated by the UK government, not the EU government.
And would risk being worse. I have more faith in a Union of half a billion people standing up for the interests of its members as an economic equal against giants such as the US. Granted, the UK isn’t a minnow, but compared to the US it has considerable disadvantages.
Overall we do suffer a deficit by being members of the EU, not as great as some people would like us to believe but still a deficit that would be better spent in the UK.
As for the statement that leaving the EU will increase unemployment in the UK, this does not take into consideration that we will regain control of our borders allowing us to control immigration to match the vacancies that are available in the UK and not flood the jobs market with cheap labour.
Johnson is an absolute psychopath. No empathy, willingness to play the buffoon to stay in the news, promiscuous, superficial charm, low tolerance for boredom, grandiose self-worth, lack of remorse or guilt, pathological lying, good at manipulating others, impulsivity, etc.
As much as I dislike Cameron, he seems to be a decent person and at least shows empathy from time to time.
One fact about Boris that you have missed is that he went to the aid of a woman who was being attacked late at night and in doing so put himself at risk.
But equally might be better.
I fear this is a touchingly naive comment.
I think the point - and it’s a fair point - is that the EU, on account of its size and wealth, is better positioned in any negotiations with the US than the UK could ever be.
Obama has already made it clear that the US is more interested in a free trade agreement with the EU (even the EU-27) than in a free trade agreement with the UK. Not that they wouldn’t want a free trade agreement with the UK, but it would be a lower priority. Obama made the comment with reference to how long the UK might have to wait in order to conclude its own US free trade agreement, but it also has obvious implications for the UK’s bargaining position when the agreement does come to be negotiated.
The problem is that it is the EU who dictate to the UK the countries that we can have trade agreements with. A very restrictive process that the UK can do without.
A point that is not being explored is that if the referendum votes to stay in it will be by a very small percentage and when the share of the vote is examined it could be found that the Welsh/Scottish vote has kept the UK within the EU. This could lead to a very strong demand for an English parliament and a new English only referendum on the EU. The probable result will be England leaving the EU, with Wales deciding to follow England and Scotland deciding on independence and leaving the union
Don’t be so sure of that. Remember that Scotland elected a UKIP MEP at the last election.
Anyway, if the bookies are to be believed, the Remain camp are on for a comfortable victory.
Well, it’s potentially restrictive, but also potentially empowering. If - as is the case here - the EU wants a free trade agreement with the US, then the UK isn’t disadvantaged by the fact that the EU might have taken the opposite view, because it doesn’t in fact take the opposite view. And the UK is or may be advantaged by the fact that the EU, because of its superior bargaining power, can negotiate a better trade agreement with the US than the UK could realistically hope to do. So what we’ve got is a hypothetical disadvantage which hasn’t materialised, versus a real advantage that has materialised. Not a difficult call, really.
See, this is what I mean about the pro-Brexit campaign having no basis in reality. England can’t leave the EU, because England isn’t a member of the EU. The UK is the member state. England can no more leave the EU than Wessex can, or the London Borough of Hackney, or the Parish of St. Nicholas Without united with St. Mary the Virgin, or any other discrete part of the UK’s territory.
Assuming the UK votes in a referendum to remain, then for England to leave requires England to leave the UK and establish itself as an independent state. The rump UK would, in principle, continue not only to be a member of the EU but to be a member of NATO, hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, etc. The new state of England would then have to renegotiate entry to all these bodies (if it wanted them, and if they wanted it).
That’s not a very realistic scenario, frankly. If the UK votes to remain, but the English vote to leave, the English must then decide whether they want to dissolve the United Kingdom. However large the “let’s leave the EU” vote in England is, I’m confident that when the question is changed to “let’s leave the UK” it will get a lot smaller. If the Scots can’t muster a majority to leave the UK, then the English certainly can’t.
There are already murmurings coming from Scotland about another referendum to leave the UK, the call for an English parliament is becoming louder, it could become an issue before the next election
Latest polls indicate LEAVE have caught up considerably…
You make it sound as if these decisions are made without any UK input. In fact, the UK is a major player in these decisions - the Commission proposes, but the Council, in which the UK has a major voting share, and the Parliament, which has 73 UK MEPs, must ratify such proposals. Most of the time, the UK is on the winning side of these votes.
To claim the EU ‘dictates’ to the UK is akin to the UK Government ‘dictating’ to Essex.
I don’t see why Scottish votes should be singled out. It’s far more likely to be London votes that make the difference (a lot more of them!), so if London votes to Remain and the rest of England votes to Leave, should we jettison London?
There was a report on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning that said that even though the Remain vote was higher in the polls if you take the voting habits and age ranges of people into consideration it removes any advantage and makes the playing field relatively even.
Apparently a higher number of 45-65 year olds wish to leave the EU. These people are also statistically more likely to vote in elections than younger people. So even though the majority of the country as a whole wishes to remain the voting patterns may skew the result.
I suppose it depends if we get a high turn out of younger voters in the same way that happened in the Scottish referendum.
Yes, I know. But there’s a huge difference between wanting to have an English Parliament (which makes perfect sense, as far as I’m concerned) and wanting an English parliament so that England can leave the United Kingdom. I’m not seeing any murmurings about that.
If memory serves, the very young voted in favour of staying in the UK. The Telegraph this morning are reporting that overall it’s 61:24 in favour of Remain
The very young, aged 16-17, voted 71:29 in favour of independence. This was the strongest pro-independence vote in any age cohort. Those aged 18-24 voted 48:52, i.e. a majority in favour of the union. There was then a majority in favour of independence in every age cohort until you get to the 55-64 group (43:57). And the over-65s voted 27:73, which was the strongest pro-union vote of any age cohort.
The odd’s are changing on a daily basis