Stage managed - didn't take long to get 36 companies in line
 

Boycott Asda and Marks and Spencer is an easy call.
They have been short sighted enough to do the bidding of our PM, whereas other food suppliers have seen fit to stay out of the arguments.

This letter, printed today, is signed off by 1/3 of the UKs' largest corporations which leaves another 2/3 with enough sense to have some level of regard for their customers rather than pander to the government of the day.

Quite so.
Underwhelmed has to be a euphemism in this context.
e.g.
"Since 1996 Britain has opposed 72 motions put forward by the council of ministers and has been outvoted every time.That is 72-0. and those motions have now become UK law.
So much for being at the heart of Europe, and there is our oft quoted "voice in Europe".
British MEPs voted against 576 eu proposals between 1996 & 2014. 485 were passed and became law."
- an abstract from elsewhere; we all need to do our own research.


You are not alone, nor rare even; "tough love" or more of the same?

Will people vote for what's good for the country, or will they only be looking after number one? The £300,000 per person claims from the SNP during the Scottish referendum were a classic example of trying to influence people through money.

The trouble with democracy is that everyone gets a say in the referendum and I'd wager the vast majority of the population are terribly ill-informed compared to those who have contributed (both continue and leave) on this thread.

Many people in the UK don't read newspapers, so won't get much information that way, instead they will be fed sound bites on TV news. My own feeling is that those who have looked at the topic in some detail now are tending towards being 'leave' voters but I suspect the referendum will end up in favour of 'continue'.

4 months of debate
 

Once we get past this initial phase of in-fighting of the political parties (well, one in particular), and the stage-managed letters written to the MSM, then we should get down to some informed discourse in the UK.

e.g.
A feasible model for the future of the UK lies some way between Japan (manufacturing and industrial capability) and Singapore (services).
Forget the fatuous, strawman, comparisons with Norway and Switzerland.
?c?

What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,
Lecturer in international political economy, University of York

Food for thought, whether you agree or not.

Good! UK papers are owned by five anti-EU, right wing media billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, (Sun/Times), Barclay Brothers (Telegraph), Richard Desmond (Express) and Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail).

Murdoch is Australian living in New York, Rothermere lives in France, the Barclay Brothers in the tax havens of Monaco and Guernsey. All of them use tax haven entities to avoid UK taxes.

Your reference lecturer has a project funded by
"UK Bologna experts are a European Commission funded team", from https://pure.york.ac.uk/portal/en/pr...b7a60a%29.html

Apart from that, his publlications are related to the EU aspiration for a CSDP (see his data in the University website for more detail) and a standing defence force.

"What did the EU ever do for us" implies that we are not capable as a nation: we can't possibly stand on our own because the EU does everything for us - see George Orwell, 1984 for more about that line of thought.

The figure of 57% trade with the EU may be out of date; others are quoting less than 50% trade with the EU - but, anyway, trade won't stop when the Germans want to continue exporting their cars to the UK.
It is the case that the other nations in Europe sell more products to the UK than we manage to sell into the continental market - in or out, we need to improve on our exports in the years to come to earn our way in the globalised world.

As one scenario (at worst if Germany refuses to sell its' VWs etc here) UK car customers would have to buy more vehicles from the Honda facility in Swindon, the Toyota factory near Derby or the world-beating Nissan factory near Sunderland.
(All owned by the Japanese).

Nevertheless, I am certainly prepared to read anything and everything over the next 4 months while judging, in the main, by what people do and not so much by what they say.
The discourse has only just started.

It's all good for UK exports
 

All depends on if you are buying or selling.

Have to love politicians when they are campaigning
 

Funny old thing, but our PM turns out today to talk to a group of O2 employees (who might have been better off at their desks, working).
O2 signed the letter referenced earlier, along with BT as just one more telecomms behemoth.
That's the same O2 that is 100% owned by the Spanish company Telefonica - no FUD factor therein was intended by our PM I guess.
It came over as another of the "safer, stronger, better off" speeches.

Loaded dice
 

Commentary elsewhere says that there was no exit poll for the Scottish referendum and begs the question of "why not?".
It is known that exit polls are by far the most accurate prediction of the likely result.

Something to watch out for with the next referendum.

Meanwhile, the UK civil service that is supposed, traditionally, to be "neutral" is likely to be used by the current UK government to state a particular case.
(the chief of the civil service has announced that it can't work for those ministers who take an "out" stance).

Do we really need the EU?
 

I agree that citing the one of 5 permanent seats on the UNSC that we hold at present would have been better found under the heading of "sovereignty".

However, we do carry wide ranging influence that will certainly impact on how we can negotiate for anything in the future:

The Council of Europe for instance.
47 Member States


+ the OECD

+ the OSCE

To name a few more international bodies.

So we hold it, even though we're in the EU? What's your point?

We are a world power; much of Europe is not.
(We have held that seat from before we joined the EU of course).

Diplomacy rules, in a sound bite.
However, the EU has aspirations to undertake its' own full-blown version of diplomacy backed up with a standing defence force and all the other accoutrements of a single nation state joined in ever-closer-Union.

Still, Lord Dannatt along with various other retirees from the UK military says it is all OK, so it must be so.

So, it's neither a reason to stay in nor a reason to leave.

IMHO its a reason not to be scared of leaving.

Our G8 economy and supposed Nuclear supposed deterrent lets us choose between going out in the big wide world and trying to differentiate ourselves or staying as one of many in the EU. Belgium for example would remain swamped by anything France and Germany do, so having some sort of input makes much more sense for them.

Is the UK, or does the UK want to be, a Switzerland or Norway or do we want to be a Luxembourg or Belgium? We seem to have failed as a potential France or Germany because we don't play the EU games that well.

Andy

It means that we can stand on our own two feet and that the EU finds the UK useful much more than the UK has a use for the EU.
Perhaps our PMs' recent negotiation did not recognise that with sufficient robustness.
?c?


It is necessary to bear in mind that nations do not have friends, just interests.
Further, those interests change with both time and circumstances; for instance, we have not always been "friendly" with the USA despite all the hype about a "special relationship".
Some historians would say that we nearly went to war with the latter in 1928 which was the post-WW1 period/pre-WW2 when the aim of the USA was to bring down the British Empire.
Around that period one of the closest allies of the UK was Japan which, as another island nation located off the shores of a continent, had similarities with the UK.

The point is that friends are temporary and interests are rather less temporary but still not even close to permanent.
IMO, I can see no successor to the nation state, despite the rise of globalisation, power-blocs (see earlier posts about aspects of them), multi-national corporations et al.

Best of the best no less
 

My thought has been that we can be a nation that lies somewhere between the examples of Japan and Singapore (as earlier post).
But we can't do what France, in particular, does within the EU - a few years ago it had more cases against it in the EU "system of appeal" (I don't remember what that is called) than any other country of the EU.
France simply ignores what it doesn't agree with.

In contrast, the UK has the best of bureaucrats who revel in "gold plating" the rules and regulations laid down by authorities and enforcing them to the letter of the law and the powers devolved to those wee job-worthies (we have all come across them!).
The best of the best no less.

Basically after dozens of pages of 'debate', a highly vocal minority who promote leaving have failed to provide;

• Why in particular the EU is bad and what it needs to change;
• How the UK will be better off leaving the EU;
• How power is exercised in the UK and how this is affected by EU membership;
• Factual studies or evidence on why the UK benefits of the loss of EU membership;
• Any citation of specific EU legislation which they disagree with;

i.e. nothing but vague sentiments with no clear vision about what the UK should be and will be without Europe.

doh

Fill your boots
 

The way of the world:
What European Countries Were Hoping For – and What They Actually Got – at the EU Summit | VICE | United Kingdom

We Asked an Expert if the EU's Over | VICE | United Kingdom

The Truth Behind All the Scaremongering You Will Hear in the EU Referendum Debate | VICE | United Kingdom


https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-...tish-business-

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-...lity-and-spite

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-a...o-everyone-584

This is what the European Commission has lined up for Europe.
The negotiations are secret and the relevant papers will remain so for 30 years.
Note who is suing who right now with respect to similar agreements in force for the Americas.

The US-EU Free Trade Agreement Could Affect 'Every Aspect of Our Lives':-

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/anti...sts-london-127

Note to the UK PM:
Best get this referendum out of the way asap before the TTIP is signed off for the EU.
ps
The article is about 18 months old.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership mentioned therein is now signed into force and Pres Obama is quite proud of that - but, he's leaving at the end of this year.
PM Cameron has also declared that he is leaving, sometime.

Well, I have to agree with you. I'm really torn here .. and sat on the proverbial fence. And there was me thinking that I was a dyed-in-the-wool 'out' voter. :rolleyes2:

My head is telling me 'stay in' .. but my heart still says 'out'.

If the Referendum were tomorrow, I would probably vote with my heart.

120 days remaining to make up my mind, one way or the other.

This is sooooo important too, especially for the next couple (or more) generations. I hope I /we get it right for their sakes. :confused2:

How do you imagine we'll be better off without the EU and what is it exactly that you feel is having a negative impact on the UK under the current terms of EU membership?

Found this an interesting read

UK and the EU: Better off out or in? - BBC News

Having only briefly skimmed through that article I noticed flaws:

52% UK-EU trade, which other sources state it's near 70%. Correct facts not fear, unbalanced.

Only 36 out of the FTSE 100 business leaders signed an open letter, the remaining 2/3rds state they'll be unaffected.

FTA, defence, immigration,investment and welfare will all be self governed. The best of a worse deal will be a reformed EU if we're lucky...


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

The way things are progressing, particularly on the refugee issue, one can't help but wondering if when of the UK referendum the EU will still be in existence...

- In Hungary a referendum (URRAY, Mr. Orban!)
- Austria plus the Visegrad countries joined efforts to close the borders to refugees
- Greece threatens to block all decisions concerning the refugee crisis and recalls the Greek Ambassador to Viena.
- Luxembourg's foreign minister, in desbelief for what his eyes see says "The outlook is gloomy ... We have no policy any more. We are heading into anarchy."

And this just in the last couple of days! Oh dear...

Things are getting terribly interesting!


:oops2:

Scarper quick
 

The problem with the EU is that it is an ideological project which keeps slamming into the hard facts of its own political realities.
Kind of like a drunk with his keys in the pub car-park after kicking out time, repeatedly fumbling with the locked door of the wrong car.
Eventually he will manage to get into his own car and crash it on the way home.
How many others will be killed in the process is the only outstanding question...
Square pegs & round holes... the whole thing.


(Brits bought property and ran businesses in Spain and the Med long before the EU came along, and they will do long after its gone)

I'm sure they'll soon produce some cogent arguments as to why we should leave.

:rolleyes2:

One question that the pro EU brigade do not and will not face up to is.....It's an unelected, unaccountable dictatorship that can not even be honest enough to produce accounts. Show me one set of audited accounts...go on !!!!!

It is not unable but unwilling to produce accounts....just like any other bent company skimming off the top.

I don't want to live in a federal fascist state, which the EU will become.

Despite the rhetoric and non-sequiturs, you actually raise a very interesting point. There should be more public accountability of the EU, the Commission and all of it's bodies and functions.

Nor do I but how will the EU become a, "Federal, facist state"?

I wouldn't categorise the 'leave' posters as being a minority, and you've also been pretty vocal in your challenges of other people's posts.

I think the first of your 'demands' above has been more than adequately explored and I don't see why anyone should jump through hoops answering your other points until you first explain:

• Why in particular the EU is good and why it doesn't needs to change;
• How the UK will be better off staying the EU;
• How power is exercised in the UK and how this is benefitted by EU membership;
• Factual studies or evidence on why the UK benefits from EU membership;
• Any citation of specific EU legislation which you agree with;

We will be a few million quid a week better off if we leave and if we choose to have an agricultural subsidy policy it'll be what we want not what suits the French. We will be able to chase off Spanish trawlers in our waters. The only court that will be able to tell us not to do this will be in the UK and won't have a Spanish judge (plus the UN if we chose to shell Cadiz, but that's not going to happen).

Specific enough?

Leave is currently ahead in the poll, although maybe under EU vote counting systems (one man, one vote but Donald Tusk is the one man) it isn't? :innocent:

Andy

Dear, oh dear.

Demands? Jumping through hoops?

We're "In". Being, "In" is the status quo. You want to change the status quo? Don't ask people to first justify the status quo. Tell them why they should want to.

Well, that depends on who you ask to do the sums. Who did you ask?

Just make sure you consider all the facts before voting for Brexit:

If every EU migrant in the UK were to leave, the country would rise one meter as their weight was removed from the landmass, thus averting future coastal flooding.

Hadrian’s Wall was built with Italian money and so would have to be returned together with compound interest of 1.6 billion rough hewn stones.

All UK Friesian cows will be white as there is no longer a need for them to have the black markings that were a requirement of the EU agricultural policy.

If the UK leaves the EU Brussels sprouts will just be called sprouts.

The reason that cars are limited to 20mph on many major London roads is due to Germany stealing UK speed allowances so that they can travel at 200mph down their own autobahns.

Just sayin'...

(source: some vague webpage posting random cr@p: Polemic's Pains)

The EU's accountants certainly couldn't give me an unequivocal answer they'd be prepared to sign off!

OK, it might be a different number, but you leave the club you stop paying the subs.

RBT: If the migrants leave the country will rise 3 feet 3 1/2 inches as meters will be abolished under BS2016!

Andy

Fascist doesn't have to imply right-wing Falange/Fascismo Italiano/Nazi dictatorships. The term can be applied to any authoritarian, totalitarian, despotic and dictatorial body. And seeing how Brussels rides roughshod over national sovereignty, fascist seems a great label.

As for federal, those in the EU who are pushing for an ever-closer integration make no secret they are intending a federal structure.

Don't forget Adrian/Hadrian was Spanish so no doubt they will be claiming free money as well.

This government does like to role the dice....

we survived the Scottish succession referendum intact..... This time though I get to vote.... even though I am south of the border in the UK

and as it is only 1 constituency It's got to be fair? we go with the way the majority of the British voted?

How can they manipulate that?

a) change the rules....

You voted the wrong way (like Ireland did) vote again.

I know most of you voted for outcome x but that is still less than 50 / 67 % of you voting for out come x so we will have outcome y (because it is what the politicians wanted anyway)

b) use the media to distort the reality of the situation.

c) cheat.....

The vast majority of our politicians are mad or snollygosters.

(snol·ly·gos·ter (snŏl′ē-gŏs′tər) ->noun Slang ->One, especially a politician, who is guided by personal advantage rather than by consistent, respectable principles.

Snollygoster
 

Good catch!
A very fine noun to describe the two politicians who turned up on the BBC Question Time programme last night - two politicos to speak for remaining in the EU and 3 non-politicians who spoke for leaving.
The two politicos could scarcely put together a coherent argument in favour of their side of the case in reply to the questions from the audience.
One was besoted with the official position of her governing party (and it became increasingly difficult for her to show that she actually believes that line) while the other is too engrossed in the lack of any real discussion within her own party which is totally disappearing from any discourse other than their own machinations about their current leader.

Quite apart from the other panel members who had something to say on the matter, it was the audience who really took apart the two politicians.
Ultimately, one member of the public summed up both of them as "second rate" but the snollygoster noun would have worked just fine.

The BBC has come up with a good format for these discussions over the next 17 weeks; some politicos will be there, alternating "for and agin", with a balance of non-politicos with the opposing view.

You stop getting the benefit too. You can count the cost but can you assess the value?

Food for thought, on trading nations
 

Just 4 of the G20 nations are European.

6% of world trade is conducted by the EU nations; 94% of world trade lies with nations outside the EU.

Britains' share of world trade is now .................................are you ready for this? ..................................... 3.6%.

Carry on thinking.

ps
1. Read up on who is a "member" of the G20.

2. This may be how Norway views the G20, by the way:-
The G-20 is a self-appointed group. Its composition is determined by the major countries and powers. It may be more representative than the G-7 or the G-8, in which only the richest countries are represented, but it is still arbitrary. We no longer live in the 19th century, a time when the major powers met and redrew the map of the world. No one needs a new Congress of Vienna.
— Jonas Gahr Støre, 2010

Entirely a political construction
 

There has been something of a theme within postings of the last few days that the EU has some kind of status - the status quo no less.
Nothing could be further from reality; it has been around for only a few years in truth.

The Status Quo.
That 3 chord band from the year dot!
Breaking news: the nation state is the status quo and it has been throughout most of recorded history. 190 odd as members of the UN and over 200 as members of FIFA, apparently and according to their own voting of yesterday.
In contrast, the EU is a politically inspired construction of your lords and masters of the universe, aided and abetted by the super-power of the current world order which can conveniently ring just a couple of numbers in order to hand down the latest directive rather than handle a diverse range of nations with scarcely a single factor in common.
?c?

Interesting if true. Got a source?

Status quo. The existing state of affairs.

Nope. I've got it.

A long way of saying nothing at all.

If you want to change something then it should be upon you to state your reasons why. I've already outlined my reasoning for staying in. For me the following quote encapsulates it perfectly.

Loading up !!!
 

Quote,
“The European Union is an undemocratic corporate stitch-up. But leaving would be worse.”

So you agree that it's a fascist Federal bunch then.......How could leaving "that" possibly be worse than rolling over and accepting it?

As for all this talk about the so called Status quo.....Who does this "Status quo" serve best? Us or the corporate bankers......we won't get a bail out or a bail in will we?

Sometimes you just got to buck the trend...go off and make your own way....sort of thing this site is all about. And most certainly ###k the status quo when it doesn't serve you.....load up the proverbial bike and get hell out of Dodge. Ok, we may be headed out for some piste....but it will be "our" route and not directions from some corporate sell out monkey boy......

I'm loadin up......

Yes you did and you continue to get it.

Hahaha, funny as!

So let me get this straight, the bankers make some shocking decisions, spunk a whole load of our money out the window, they then get bailed out by the government using taxes that we paid for again using our money and it's for our benefit?
Oh and then to add insult later, they sell off the remains for a lot less than it cost which has the net result of bankers and politicians getting a lot richer off the back of the public.

Yeah, we're continuing to get it. Where the sun don't shine.....

And this has what to do with the EU?

Bugger all, but has a lot to do with your previous reply.

Which was itself a reply to twowheels03.

So much noise from you pro-Brexit guys, so little signal.

Who says I'm pro brexit?

As a matter of fact, I'm one that is as yet undecided. I can see good and bad in the union.

I can however make my mind up about a few individuals on here from comments they make and conclusions they draw that they are quite blinkered on both sides of the debate.

Sorry for the mis-identication. I'm undecided myself as I've indicated earlier. I'm pro-Europe but not sure Cameron's deal is good enough.

What I see here though is some good questions being asked and little but rhetoric coming in response.

Pretty much my stand point.

I think we should be taking down borders, not building them. All they cause is bitterness, resentment and miss trust.

I'm also quite alarmed at the rapid rise of far right views. Parts of Europe went down this path less than a century ago, you would think that such atrocities within living memory would serve as a stark reminder of the path that intolerance takes us.

Maybe we are moving to fast towards a more integrated Europe, and people are struggling to cope with it.

However, financial imbalances within the union and some quite large cultural differences must be addressed.

I think the rise of far right views has been caused by the mass migration. The TV cameras might focus on the women and children but the majority of the migrants are young men. It could be they are fleeing call-up in their own country, but it's an imbalance in the host country, especially when some misbehave as they did in Köln.

I can't say that my mind is definitely made up re the referendum, but I'm certainly leaning in a non-nein direction. I would have prefered Cameron to have told the assembled prime ministers that the deal wasn't good enough and for him to have carried the campaign into 2017 which would have really annoyed the French and Germans with their internal elections.

There's no doubt that some in Europe (especially France) would like to move to a more integrated Europe, but the question was never put to the great unwashed British public following Maastricht and Lisbon and the forthcoming referendum will actually be the first chance we get to give an opinion.

A quote from an interesting wikipedia article on the European Constitution, "ICM asked 1,000 voters in the third week of May 2005: “If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the European Constitution or not?”: 57% said no, 24% said yes, and 19% said that they did not know"

One of my best friends in Dutch and as he says, the Netherlands voted "no" in 2006 but the politicians just ignored the result of the referendum.

However... before the UK gets to vote in June there will be a referendum in Netherlands on 6 April asking whether Ukraine should be allowed to join the EU. Opinion polls suggest a "no" vote.

Totally in favour of Ukraine joining the UK, their vodkas lovely and Dynamo in the premiership would be cool.

Why do the cloggies get to decide though? Possibly enough know where Ukraine is to make an informed decision?

:innocent:

Andy

To which migrants are you talking about Tim? - "Majority of migrants are young men"?

Several:

G20:
G20: what is it and how does it work? - Telegraph
Note how the privately owned central banks get to sit at the table + the EU is in there.
In effect the EU (note a rotating representative) is not speaking for the 4 largest economies currently in the EU who have their own seats – little wonder at the Norwegian comment about the G20 organisation which is ad hoc in nature.


World trade Vs the EU: the specific figures appear later in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv5O_Gq30ow




UK share of world trade;
Transparency International - Exporting Corruption 2015

For just 50 years or so which makes the EU a Johnny-come-lately to my mind.

Either way, Our PM needs to get his referendum of the way before the Euro crashes and burns for the 19 countries involved in that (with 3 of them also in the G20 setup it will give the EU more to think about than the £ zone).
Will Pending Eurozone Bank Crisis Take Down the Euro (EUR)? | Currency News UK

Referenda are a growing fad for we europeans: the Hungarians are also to hold one.
Years ago, Tony Blair said that the British public could not be entrusted with a referendum about EU membership - I guess no one is listening to him nowadays.

France
 

Regarding the myth of the EU status quo I am going to do some digging around and have a pop at France.
Simply because France lay at the "heart of darkness" in the birth of the current setup, from the coal and steel community to what we have today.

"France, quite rightly looks to its own interests in all things, why shouldn't the UK do the same ?
The EU has put itself at a major disadvantage by creating the Euro which was not properly founded on even the most basic principles of a common currency. Because it wasn't done properly, it has become the engine for all the eurozone's ailments and worse, in the past 5 years, no attempt has been made to sort it out. The consequence is that today you have two choices, break the currency up or become a Federal European State where the nation states as political entities cease to exist.
To do this, you need to ask the voters of each country whether they agree with this, no sign of that happening is there ?
Next year there are elections in both Germany and France which is just one more reason why our PM has caved in with his negotiations.
These could see Merkel removed from office because of her mishandling of the refugee crisis and Marine Pen as the French President. The EU is in a mess of its own making and whether the British stay or leave will have no impact on the consequences of the foolishness of the eurozone leaders which has brought their countries to such a sorry state."
- abstracted from elsewhere with a modicum of additional commentary.

So not official figures then. Seemingly not even correct interpretation of the figures.

The status quo is the current state of affairs. Strange that you feel that the status quo is the state of affairs 50 years ago.

Each to his own, I guess.

bier

I guess this depends on whose version of officialdom we depend upon.
As for "correct" interpretation of the figures we are getting an amount of reporting within the UK now about how our own government intends to control their own ministers who don't wish to follow the party line.

Here is some more "official" data:

Export performance has been deteriorating | OECD READ edition


Which is drawn from the extensive library of the OECD:-
Export performance has been deteriorating - Assessment and recommendations - OECD Economic Surveys: United Kingdom 2015 - OECD iLibrary

The Transparency International figure that I cited earlier has used OECD data for their own "interpretations".
Has http://www.transparency.org.uk/ corrupted their own use of published data for their own nefarious purposes??
From their own website:-
"Transparency International UK is a registered charity. We are the UK chapter of the global Transparency International movement. We are financially independent and raise our own income in order to undertake our work. We receive donations and earn income from a number of different sources including statutory bodies, charitable trusts and foundations, the private sector and individuals.
Our views and policy recommendations are based purely on our research, and we will not accept any source of funding where a funder seeks to influence these. We undertake due diligence to ensure that accepting a source of funds will not compromise our independence or that of the wider Transparency International movement."



Ultimately, we all have to make our own interpretations or fall into line with Blair's point of view (the earlier post number 361)

Not 50 years ago, but over many centuries of "development", the latter in all areas of activity undertaken by mankind - that is the real status quo.

For instance, I am somewhat surprised that there has not been more discussion in here about our system of law compared with mainland Europe, but that may arise when the undue influence of France is mentioned, again.

France, again
 

The EU was founded on the Coal and Steel community as a means of stopping French occupation of the Ruhr and Saar region at the end of WW2 (peeved because they really wanted massive reparations à la WW1) and the French coal piracy from those areas and getting some fair and efficient economic cooperation between 2 nations who needed each other to resuscitate a base industry.
Monnet (rather out of guilt), Schumann and Adenauer.
Strasbourg is where the French 'demanded' (French verb – demander) the ECB to be situated. Remember EU Parliament caravans each month between Brussels and Strasbourg and, you'll love this, the parliament secretariat is in Luxembourg.


The EU was forged out of the Coal and Steel Community which the French were forced to accept when their post-war plans to annex the Saar and control bits of the Ruhr were scotched by the Brits and Americans.
It started as the second best option for France's interests, but led to France creating a union in its own image.

Just a bit of 50-60-70 year old history.
"Countries have no friends, only interests".

The talk of official data, statistics, interpretation and the like reminded me of this piece of EU harmonisation from 2014:-

Drugs and prostitution add £10bn a year to UK economy - Telegraph
It's hard to keep a straight face at times, especially when driving past all the hookers hanging out on the main highways of Strasbourg, or Rouen for that matter.

Europe today
 

Before looking further at the case of France in greater detail, it is worth considering just a few, almost random, points about how the EU is lined up at present.

The Visegrad nations: yep, up to now they like the EU, especially in the case of their un-reconstituted politicians. They recognise the same system of direction given to them as they were all too familiar with when part of the USSR; centralised 5 year plans that never quite seem to work out but, hey, there is always the next 5 year plan to keep us busy and the people don't seem to mind.
Meanwhile the populations have been kept content and relatively quiet with major handouts of largesse from you-know-where.
But, they also know how to rise up and revolt.
Hungary: 1956, short, sharp and brutal.

Checho-lands: 1968, ditto.

Poland: Solidarity for years.



France: keep buying/paying off the farmers via the CAP and all is well with the world.
Wales: ditto.


Germany: is it really possible that Frau Merkel is a reformed communist from the late-lamented DDR? (The DDR never did revolt in the manner of the Visegrad nations).
(one of the Ds in DDR relates to "democracy") :innocent:

And quite right so... albeit the concept of "democracy" in that context is not the same as used by the rest of the people. The D for "Democracy" in the DDR along with several other similar cases in other communist countries refers to the Leninist-Stalinist concepts of democracy which has nothing to do with the concept of democracy in civilized world. One word, two whole different meanings. To the current systems in most European Countries they refer as "Burgeois Democracy", something to abolish under communist doctrine for they don't consider it to be a democracy at all.

The Leninist-Stalinist concept of democracy is still used by some extreme left parties nowadays such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece (although these had to cave to proper democracy or risk bankruptcy) or Bloco de Esquerda in Portugal. Unfortunatelly the vast majority of people don't know enough about the history of communism to understand that the democracy to which these parties refer is not the same currently in existence in these countries and, of course, the parties themselves are quite happy to keep the fiction. Otherwise the people would understand that these parties' concept of democracy equates dictatorship in layman terms or "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as defined by Marx and Engels.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

UK government releases report on brexit; 'would affect the lives of millions'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...uk-report-says

Just an open question to those who want out and see the EU as this fascist monster vampire squid sucking out UK sovereignty - if the EU was such a threat to the government why would it publish a report that is pro-EU?

One man - one vote where Angela Merkel was the one man casting the one vote would at least be more efficient than having a Parliament, commission and courts wandering about the place overruling each other.

The countries that make up the EU are not equal. They can (as one example) either chose to make the German finance ministry responsible for sorting the Greek economy (as they did the East German one) with all the pain that would involve, or they can let them go to the wall under their own free will and let things sort themselves out later. Constantly telling lies and papering over the cracks is not going to end well though, it only builds up pressure that will make the resulting explosion worse.

Andy

Flip side of the coin - about 80 years ago
 

Whereas, on the other side of the totalitarian fence, during roughly the same period, Hitlers' rise to power was funded by German industrialists aided by funding from the USA of the day - after the USA entered WW2 (more than 2 years after it kicked off in Europe) that nation considered who had been assisting the Nazi party to come to power; one such was the father of George W.
Bankers win-win, no matter who does the dying bit.

France part deux, or trois or whatever
 

"France knew that any EU in which they predominated must have an economic infrastructure that mirrored France's exceptional (to the rest of Europe and still so) format. Their quality, niche-brand and special products base had to be protected. Thus a protectionist (both labour and product), closed-shop, rather incestuous, vastly over-regulated trading network and an attempt at shared currency under the aura of social democrat market meddling. Wisely, they saw the need for this economic frailty to be politically supported. Thence a centralised, statist approach - where else is the public and private sector border so blurred, executive preponderance (pretty Napoleonic), legislatively accommodative (Napoleon again ) and not independently accountable - no Sir Humphreys (UK civil service) for whomsoever the Commissionaire, but the Commissionaire's own politically aligned 'chef de cabinet'. and an internal audit vehicle.


The French rushed, especially under the Anglo-Saxon phobic CdG, to get this done before UK, Ireland and Denmark entry (Norway was in that original group but gave up largely because of centralism) with more economically competitive and politically liberal views inhibited French ambition. Thus the two vetos and the slapping down on the basis of (here we go again, bad history) any granule of German assertiveness.
CdG also made sure of Belgian and Luxembourgois support in his political Legoland.
A problem was that even on entry UK made no effort to understand the structure, administrative method of the EU. UK never had other than a junior, non-permanent cabinet post to look after the EU and never briefed her only Chief of Commission (Woy Jenkins) to useful effect.
Germany did not assert until her reunification was assured (with the quid pro quo to France of taking the €).
So, in some ways, France has the most to lose by UK-driven reforms, slight as they might be, and this accounts for the eventually self-ruining obduracy of France, personified by the vacuous Hollande"

- another abstract from elsewhere.

It's true but let's be fair. Hitler garnered much support from the US but also from Britain because he was seen (and rightly so) as a wall against the spread of Bolshevism to Central and Western Europe. In a way I can understand this position and let's not fool ourselves: Hitler indeed extirpated and exterminated communism and communists from Germany. Although, I must point, this view of the wall against communism, although correct in itself, does not excuse several errors by omission, specially after the militarization of the Ruhr in February 1936. By then and given Germany's declared intentions and actions already taken some sort of action by Britain and France was warranted. If it had been done, Hitler would be some obscure part of history nowadays and little much than a point of discussion if he was only rethoric or if he was a real danger.

I'm straying away from your post so let me get back to its fulcrum because your reply goes right to the point. When I mentioned communism you immediately replied with nazism. The point is exactly that. Nazism is known by all. Everybody knows about nazi concentration camps, the Gestapo and all that. But nobody knows much about communism, its concentration camps, its political repression which left the Gestapo to look like altar boys, the violence, the state-sponsored terror, the writings of Lenin, his actions, etc, etc. If knowledge about communism had became as widespread as its nazi counterpart, popular repulse to communism would be at least as strong as the repulse of nazism if not worst.

The two obvious, and only, options are,
A. Full integration of a federal state of Europe = the usual single state apparatus of common fiscal, monetary, law policies as a minimum.
B. Break up of the Euro zone and the constituent nations, which is politically unacceptable no matter what the pain caused to citizens of the relevant countries.

Either way, brexit or no brexit, that is the train wreck that is lying on the tracks of the EU railroading.
The brexit choice comes down to pulling the emergency cord and jumping off the run away train before it rounds the last bend and sees what is on the tracks ahead.

National Socialism was a handy title, for a time
 

Two faces of the same totalitarian mind set.

The UK has always been somewhat ambivalent to Communism
- especially within Oxford and Cambridge Unis post-WW2.

I did mention, earlier, the Chinese version of communist revolution but, sure, the gulags are more or less ignored nowadays.

Nicola Sturgeon has thrown a spanner in the works. A vote to leave on 23 June would likely result in a second Scottish referendum and the recommendation that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU.

Trying to get my head round that one.

It's official, you can't keep a good man down
 

Varoufakis, a Man for All Seasons, to Advise Britain’s Labour Party

During the in-fighting and civil war of our current governing party you might expect the official opposition to come up with a view, even though their official view is no different from that of the UK government.

It's not a big spanner, nor the first time she has come out with this statement but she had to say it in London this time around.



The Scottish Standard - The Postal Ballot at the Scottish Independence Referendum - Fraud?



"Since the IndyRef Scottish Ballot papers now have 2″ block capital numbers on the back.
So, if Sturgeon knew about the fixing of the IndyRef why did she not call another one? Somebody needs to paste that article to Galloway for a start. If I was UKIP I would be shouting from the rooftops about the rigged ref and the SNP did nothing. And I would also be seeking “assurances” that MI5 under Cameron’s instruction would not be tampering with the Brexit ref.
There will never ever ever be another IndyRef in Scotland.
Sturgeon has just stated that it could trigger a 2nd ref……no way.
Here’s Sturgeons current logical position
United Kingdom Bad
4th Reich Good
Really??? as they say you just can not make it up.
With a supposed budget of £65billion (actually about £5-10Billion higher) in an Independent Scotland the deficit on the current account would be approx £15 Billion or over 20%. And that is before we get to the repayment of their share of the National Debt.
Scotland is getting £15Billion subsidy but only adding £7billion to it’s national debt. In other words it is getting an £8billion freebie. The UK govt proposed cutting the Scottish grant by £7billion over the next 10 years taking it to some sort of parity with the rest ok the UK. – Sturgeon and Swinney refused point blank. The Tories then said that they would meet them half way and propsed a £3billion cut to the Scottish govt…so far the SNP govt is refusing point blank citing the “no detriment” clause in the Smith agreement.. It is a pile of shcweppes. We are worse off than Greece.
If one was a bit devious one could suggest that the upcoming Brexit ref also doubles up, so that if Scotland votes to stay in then it will automatically be deemed to have become an independent country.
Anyway if there is no deal on the current “Fiscal Framework” negotiations then the above piece is pretty true.
(Note; such a deal is now struck since this was written but damned if I know what that deal is).
staying in Euroland means the heralding in of TTIP (also TISA) and the complete privatisation of the NHS.
At the Scottish Ref that was the one issue that really changed minds. So much so that the SNP vote went from 28% around May to 45% at the referendum in September…..Think on that. If you see Nigel tell him it’s a game changer for UKIP"
- another abstract from elsewhere.
UKIP is referenced above because those who voted for them at the last general election equate to about the whole of the Scottish electorate numbers.

Despite the convolutions illustrated above -

Logically, fully committed SNP supporters will vote in favour of Brexit in order to lead to the ultimate, more important, aim of Scottish "independance".
Will they do that however?

Meanwhile, on the gravy train
 

"Meanwhile over in Europe
According to an internal audit published in 2008, MEPs channelled £125,000-a-year allowances for secretaries and research assistants into family-owned businesses, foreign bank accounts and ‘front’ companies.
The Galvin Report revealed that politicians strived to ‘use up’ their portion of a £100million expenses pot without the need to provide receipts.
But the dossier by chief auditor Robert Galvin, from which leaks first emerged two years ago, did not name the worst culprits.
And the day-to-day spending of the European Parliament’s 736 members – 72* of them from the UK – remains secret as they are exempt from Freedom of Information requests.
Various TV companies have filmed MEPs signing in for 300 Euro daily expense allowance and then going home….
An independent UK will no longer have to fund billions in UK contributions to the EU or be restricted in the rate of VAT …. amongst many other things….."
- more abstraction

• *Note the % figure (72/700+); the UK has less than 10% of the representation in the Euro parliament.

For anyone who thinks the UK has a 'voice' in the EU - the UK has only 8.4% of the votes in the Council of Ministers with 26% needed to block legislation, and absolutely no veto on trade and business legislation.




We do vote for these folks however not many UK voters can name their local MEP.

Oxymoron??
 

From the banner headline in the link, but who pays the piper?
Supporting Scottish Independence, and a fairer, equal and transparent society for all

European Economic Area
 

We could ditch the CAP and the common fisheries policy tomorrow by leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA – discuss???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area



?c?
Probably not - This doesn't get publicity because the UK government don't like it.
Broadly, it is nick named as "flexit eureferendum" for favourite search engines.

Deserves a multi-level response.

With a name like Scottish National Party what else do you expect?

On the other hand what happened to Alex Salmond's "once in a generation" referendum, surely a generation is longer than a couple of years.

The SNP was banking on being able to persuade the rest of the UK that the North Sea oil belonged just to Scotland (WTF) and I'll link in again Alex Salmond's preposterous suggestion that North Sea oil would be worth £300,000 to every Scot (i.e. steal the money from the Welsh, Northern Irish and English). But the fall in the oil price has shot all their budgets to hell and it would be financial suicide to go for independence right now.

But the politicians who are leading the charge aren't really interested in the health of the Scottish nation, just their own status.

So yes, please go for independence. But when Orkney says it doesn't want to be part of Scotland and would like to be governed by Norway again, will Scotland listen?

If there's a part of the UK that really could make a success of independence it would be SE England. If Greater London went it alone with its population of 10+ million (more than twice that of Scotland) and a wealth generating capacity of at least five times that of Scotland, this would be a true success story.

But maybe the Londoners have a greater sense of loyalty? :innocent:

I think Nicola Sturgeon may have a point. Scotland as a country with a population under 10 million and a economy based on commodities like oil and regional products like Whiskey may well play the EU game better and so do better. You don't ever hear anything of say Slovenian complaints about the EU. Lumped with England they probably get a worse deal.

The EU overlord would however still treat them in the same way as their English conquerors in the end, just from greater distance and with even less attention to the detail when they have bigger fish to fry. I'm surprised someone campaigning for independence wants a bigger master. Possibly Scottish Prime minister and EU Gaulighter for the Edinburgh and Glasgow sub-district comes with a bigger office?

They should have tied the two referenda together. Scotland/ROTUK taking the UK's EU seat may be what people want, but is so logical it will have terrified the politicians. It would have also raised the question of Wales and Northern Ireland wanting Brussels not London. Using the Scots Nationalists to drag the English back into the fold is an obvious tactic. England feeding the city of London would be like having a Switzerland Mk.2 with more missiles and fewer cuckoo clocks pop up off your coast.

Andy

Oh yes, there are arguments for regional "governments" of the nature identified in the last couple of posts.
These would fall into line (more or less) with the current regions used by the EU for their own purposes which are identified in the earlier link:-

What do you have in mind?

Regarding your earlier point related to the bank bail-outs of the last decade: the next banking event of similar nature will be subject to bail-ins.
The legislation for the bail-ins is in place and has had a trial run by the ECB in the case of Cyprus.

The bail-ins are a bad joke. A very bad joke indeed.

If a bank goes belly-up it's for its own wrong-doings, that is true and its shareholders are punished by loosing their investment. But there are also and most specifically the supervision authorities who did not do their job and allowed it to happen. The job of a regulatory authority is above and most of all to keep the stability of the system. The public entrusts its money to the banks for reasons of reputation of this or that bank but also because above them exists (or at least it is supposed to exist) a supervision body which guarantees that the bank operates according to regulations and is solvent at all times. If the regulatory body does not do its job correctly then the banks go belly-up and we have a lot of trouble.

Now, the regulatory institutions are government bodies. So, my question is, why should depositors pay for a government body's leniency if not direct incompetence? It's a mistake done by the regulator so the state must pay and be held responsible for the incompetence of one of its bodies. Therefore, if trouble occurs, then, States (this being tax-payers) should pay. Then in the next election maybe the tax payers remember and vote for merit instead of politics.

Some 40 or 50 years ago, even 20 years ago, this thing of the bail-ins would be both an absurd and an outrage. However, in nowadays' Europe, where a tendency to punish wealth is surfacing with a lot of strength along with utter disrespect for money it is considered the new normal to have wealthy people paying for States' wrongdoings.

This is not inocuous, at all. Slowly but steadily money is pouring out of Europe in general (some countries are exceptions) but as more of these crazy ideas against wealth and money are implemented the more the money goes away for greener pastures.

It's just money
 

Before the possibility of bail-ins arising there is an increased chance of negative interest rates by the ECB; I think it is the 10th March when Mr Draghi is next scheduled to produce a rabbit from his hat.
i.e. make his next announcement about both interest rates and further QE.

Even at the last G20 conference, I think it was our very own governor of the BoE who commented that the banks are working to a remit wherein they, the central banks, do their bit but the respective governments won't grasp the nettles of their own responsibilities; why would they when, in the case of the UK, you are in govn for 5 years (4 years for the USA).
Nevertheless, Gov Carney did not agree that the banks are "running out of ammunition" even though everyone can see that it is so.
But, every public pronouncement/forecast that Gov Carney has made since he took up office over 2 years ago has turned out to be wrong.

Life is short; live for today is the mantra.

There's always nylons, cigarettes and Hershey bars (so long as the EU doesn't ban Imperial sizes).

Andy

Don't know if you're aware of this but this morning, Japan did it again!

Yep, Japan sold a ten-year government bond (JGB) on a negative average yield of -0.024%.

Anyone who bought a wedge of these bonds, and who holds onto them for the entire 10-year term, is absolutely guaranteed to lose money (in nominal terms, at least).

The world really is going crazy! :helpsmilie:

It's kind of explained here:-



Drawn from:-
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/03...tory-and-shit/

Brexit document
 

Now that the UK government is publishing "dodgy dossiers" here is a document that was published previously.
Until recently I did think that the "Norway option" is the same as the "Swiss option" - it isn't, yet another bit of detail that hasn't come out in the UK MSM.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...or%20web_0.pdf

This paper advocates for the Swiss model of arrangements with the future EU, assuming that the EU protectionist customs union remains in place for the future.

Those who don't have the time to read all 140 pages, or thereabouts, could jump straight to the appendices that start at about page 100.

In observing the limp wristed Philip Hammond's (et al) capitulation to the EU even before a vote I am left with the strange feeling of admiration for Donald Trump and wishing he was fighting for us outers.

“You wanna make life difficult for us when we leave Germany? 100% tariffs on Mercedes Benz trucks! We'll allow the £30k Chinese trucks to take their place.”

“France calls for trade sanctions? Complete ban on French wine. New world wines – no tariffs.”

“You demand free movement for free trade? Fine. €50 charge for every EU passenger flying through UK airspace”.

“And all you politicians can then go explain to your voters at your next elections why they have been laid off! Don't f**K with us EU”

Like him or loath him, the Donald won't let another country walk all over him or his like our spineless wastes of space do, which explains his presence in poltics.

David Charter has written a good summary in today's The Times newspaper covering four example schemes—Norway, Switzerland, Canada and World Trade Organisation.

Both Norway and Switzerland are signatories to the Schengen agreement with the laws that brings and Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Association (Switzerland is not and its FTA free trade association agreement only covers goods, not services).

The absolute fall back is to the level of the WTO, this is considered unlikely given that Germany wants to maintain its sales of 800,000+ motor vehicles into the UK each year. The Canadian model might involve quotas (in both directions, mind), but has the advantage of not having to allow free movement of people or contribute to EU budgets.

The UK already (obviously) meets all EU standards so the conclusion of a trade deal with the EU is much easier than for Canada and other countries.

The degree of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spread by the 'stay' campaign reminds me of the underhand sales techniques used by IBM salesmen in the 1970s.

Any Free Trade Agreeements (FTA) for the UK will certainly be very much different from any other models for reasons that have been flagged up in here previously + Schauble, the German finance minister, has already stated that Germany will have a FTA with the UK asap to continue their current inbalance of trade into the UK.
In or out, the glaring issue facing the UK today is the lack of export "productivity" and lack of productivity in general.
The EU trade restrictions via its' custom barriers to the remainder of the world do not assist but staying in means that we may be hoisted into a non-attractive TTIP.
Better that we decide for ourselves assuming that we can muster some negotiators who represent the best interests of the nation.

On "daily politics" just run today, the govn representative was ripped apart on the facts of the dodgy dossier. e.g. Norway accepts 9% of EU rules and regs (BBC research) and not the 75% quoted in the dossier.
Swiss exports are 5x the level of UK exports.

The link that I posted above for a 140 page document does discuss many of the issues herein and it talks about a transatlantic FTA to be considered by the UK once out of the EU - this could be negotiated concurrently in the 2 year period laid down for an article 50 withdrawal.
No politician has yet discussed this type of aspect in anything but the most general terms (yet Bombardier, a major Canadian manufacturer with plants in the UK, recently cut 7000 posts worldwide including some in the UK).

The FUD project is a re-run of the Scottish referendum strategy also taken from earlier FUD based on exit from the ERM and about the possibility of joining the Euro (how would that look nowadays?).

WTO
 

Coincidentally, I've been doing some reading about the WTO recently, so here it is:-


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


The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. The WTO was established in 1995.
As well as its existing 162 members, a further 21 countries have applied to join the WTO, including Iran, Iraq and Syria. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international agency and its purpose is to promote international commerce.
Much of the detailed negotiating is done in Geneva, where the WTO has its headquarters. Although the UK is a full member of the WTO it does not represent itself when negotiating with other trading Countries, instead the EU’s executive arm — speaks for all EU member States at all WTO meetings”. The UK and the other 27 (currently) nations of the EU customs union have to try and come to a European Union-wide understanding that may actually end up being against the interests of the UK,
But if the UK were outside of the EU, it would sit at the WTO table in its own right and have a full say.
In simple terms, let's cut out the middleman; after all it's the WTO that makes the global trading rules and EU membership costs the UK a lot of money.
If the Uk were speaking just for itself with the members of the WTO deals could be agreed rapidly.


Summary.
We permit the EU, via the Commission, to act as the middleman, standing between the 5th largest economy in the world and its' markets, and pay them handsomely for their services.

Additionally, the European "input" has been to protect the French farmers:-

"During the Doha Round, the US government blamed Brazil and India for being inflexible and the EU for impeding agricultural imports.[23] The then-President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (above right), responded to the criticisms by arguing that progress would only be achieved if the richest countries (especially the US and countries in the EU) made deeper cuts in agricultural subsidies and further opened their markets for agricultural goods"

I just caught a glimpse of him on a news item; the ultimate grey man in a grey suit.

Rational argument – there is no status quo.
Project Fear | Matt Ridley
Written just about a month ago and overtaken by events in terms of the background – but the points made are considerable.

Leaving aside the parochial in-fighting of UK politicos, this is the gist:

In order to defeat Project Fear, and reassure the average voter in Morpeth and Monmouth that she can vote “leave” and not lose her job, the Leave campaign will have to use the ten weeks of campaigning to paint a lifelike picture of life in Britain outside the European Union.
They will have to persuade people that we will not be insular and insecure, but a big country with a flexible and thriving economy attracting international investors and innovators because of our good relations and free trade with both the EU and the fast-growing economies of Asia and elsewhere. The Japan of the West, only more open. On the other hand, the campaign will also have to neutralise fear by entrenching in people’s minds the point that there is no status quo: staying in carries just as many uncertainties and risks as leaving. For example, the migration crisis could lead to the collapse of the Schengen agreement, just as the euro could also collapse. And if either is to be averted, then it will probably require vastly more centralisation of political decision-making, worsening the democratic deficit.
We are living in fantasy land if we think that under those circumstances vague promises made to Britain about ever-closer union, or on not making decisions that hurt non-euro countries, are worth any more than the paper they are written on.
I keep hearing talk from those who want to remain about the “retribution” that might be meted out to us if we left. Don’t count on negotiating a favourable trade treaty with the EU, they say, or getting associate status in EU research programmes (as Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Israel have), because Brussels will be so sore at our having left that they will drag their feet over every deal, or do everything they can to spite us, even if it is not in their interests to do so.
Well, my friends, I am increasingly worried about retribution if we stay in. Feeling grumpy with us after we made such a fuss over renegotiation, but having successfully called our bluff by conceding so little, our partners and Eurocrat masters will say to us (in courteous diplomatic language, of course): right, you pestilential Brits, like it or lump it, you are now in for good. We never need pay any attention to your worries again. We’re off to integration and you are locked in the back of the car. There is no alternative. You see: two can play at Project Fear.