Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I welcome any website ... from either side ... that provides more information.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
I think what he means is a lot of ridicule from people like him who believe there is no intellectual case for leaving. Fortunately that means all he has is insults which make Leavers stronger in their conviction that it is the right thing to do.
I am so tempted to change your final few words to "it is the right wing thing to do"....
Good thing he didn’t bearing in mind that I am not right wing
All this talk of what Macron actually said intrigued me ... so ... at the risk of @Fiiish making another implication about my motives ... I wanted to understand the background.
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
So you have the leader of the second most powerful nation in the EU readily acknowledging that the EU and the European project needs reform. A leader who recognises that there are many people who feel left behind by developments of the last 10 years or so.
How one earth can that standpoint be criticised?. It is exactly what Cameron should have said (and done something about). But he couldn't because he was a Tory PM.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I welcome any website ... from either side ... that provides more information.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
I think what he means is a lot of ridicule from people like him who believe there is no intellectual case for leaving. Fortunately that means all he has is insults which make Leavers stronger in their conviction that it is the right thing to do.
I am so tempted to change your final few words to "it is the right wing thing to do"....
Good thing he didn’t bearing in mind that I am not right wing
All this talk of what Macron actually said intrigued me ... so ... at the risk of @Fiiish making another implication about my motives ... I wanted to understand the background.
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
So you have the leader of the second most powerful nation in the EU readily acknowledging that the EU and the European project needs reform. A leader who recognises that there are many people who feel left behind by developments of the last 10 years or so.
How one earth can that standpoint be criticised?. It is exactly what Cameron should have said (and done something about). But he couldn't because he was a Tory PM.
???
Where did I criticise his standpoint?
My post was merely to add comment to the existing discussion on Macron’s speech.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I wouldn't take for granted that anyone is unbiased (mostly because it's not possible), but the correct academic approach is to seek to recognise one's own bias and look to limit its impact, which is why, in academic terms, the majority peer-reviewed view is important (because it represents greater rigour). That's not to say that outlier opinions are necessarily wrong, just that they are, much less likely to be right.
What this grouping indicates is a desire by some to make a specifically political statement. It is a reaction to the overwhelming weight of opinion in academia, which argues that Brexit will be bad for UK universities and research, which has become a political statement, but, on the whole, I would suggest that that was not the motivating factor. As with all other sectors of the economy/society, there is a desire to protect what benefits there are from the EU.
Hmmm, I think when it comes to getting an understanding of the hegemonic Brexit view amongst academics, I'm more persuaded by 13 (thirteen) Nobel prize winners, than I am by a website calling itself Brexit Central.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I wouldn't take for granted that anyone is unbiased (mostly because it's not possible), but the correct academic approach is to seek to recognise one's own bias and look to limit its impact, which is why, in academic terms, the majority peer-reviewed view is important (because it represents greater rigour). That's not to say that outlier opinions are necessarily wrong, just that they are, much less likely to be right.
What this grouping indicates is a desire by some to make a specifically political statement. It is a reaction to the overwhelming weight of opinion in academia, which argues that Brexit will be bad for UK universities and research, which has become a political statement, but, on the whole, I would suggest that that was not the motivating factor. As with all other sectors of the economy/society, there is a desire to protect what benefits there are from the EU.
Hmmm, I think when it comes to getting an understanding of the hegemonic Brexit view amongst academics, I'm more persuaded by 13 (thirteen) Nobel prize winners, than I am by a website calling itself Brexit Central.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
All this talk of what Macron actually said intrigued me ... so ... at the risk of @Fiiish making another implication about my motives ... I wanted to understand the background.
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
So you have the leader of the second most powerful nation in the EU readily acknowledging that the EU and the European project needs reform. A leader who recognises that there are many people who feel left behind by developments of the last 10 years or so.
How one earth can that standpoint be criticised?. It is exactly what Cameron should have said (and done something about). But he couldn't because he was a Tory PM.
???
Where did I criticise his standpoint?
My post was merely to add comment to the existing discussion on Macron’s speech.
Yes and I took your "comment" to be a post in support of a view that Macron "knows" that a referendum would result in the French voting to leave the EU, whereas your post shows nothing of the kind. Rather it shows a mature and intelligent understanding of the global discontent of many elements of Western society.
Sorry if that was not your intention, but I wouldn't be the first one -today - to have misunderstood the reason why you post a link to a certain story. Perhaps you should consider posting a sentence explaining the extent to which an article chimes with your own view?
All this talk of what Macron actually said intrigued me ... so ... at the risk of @Fiiish making another implication about my motives ... I wanted to understand the background.
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
So you have the leader of the second most powerful nation in the EU readily acknowledging that the EU and the European project needs reform. A leader who recognises that there are many people who feel left behind by developments of the last 10 years or so.
How one earth can that standpoint be criticised?. It is exactly what Cameron should have said (and done something about). But he couldn't because he was a Tory PM.
???
Where did I criticise his standpoint?
My post was merely to add comment to the existing discussion on Macron’s speech.
Yes and I took your "comment" to be a post in support of a view that Macron "knows" that a referendum would result in the French voting to leave the EU, whereas your post shows nothing of the kind. Rather it shows a mature and intelligent understanding of the global discontent of many elements of Western society.
Sorry if that was not your intention, but I wouldn't be the first one -today - to have misunderstood the reason why you post a link to a certain story. Perhaps you should consider posting a sentence explaining the extent to which an article chimes with your own view?
The quote from last year ‘infers’ that if the EU were not reformed, there would be a Fexit.
The discussion on here was that the most recent comment was being read out of context and that Macron did not mean that.
Personally, I couldn’t care less either way, it is all pedantic.
The more I hear of him, the more I like ... and many of his aims chime with my own.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
Thank you for the link and I have read the article with interest. The main conclusion is that you didn't have to be thick to vote brexit, that there were things to consider that might justify the vote.
I am heartened by that, even if in my view brexit voters can be thoughtful and contemplative yet still be wrong to vote the way they did.
The test is still going to be where the devil lurks, in the practical details.
If I have an agreement with my neighbour to share the hedge cutters and that agreement ends, the hedge will still need to be cut somehow and the details sorted out.
This is the current state of affairs. Brexit won, but the consequence seems to be that somehow it will sort itself out without the winners having to confront the dreary details and solve the problems.
Like (ready for this) the Irish border.
Another feature of the article seems to be how much the agenda is about money.
I have relatives in Hamburg and County Clare and can afford to travel to visit them, it is stuff like the EHIC card, the border checks, the declarations of status, the shared air space, the types of documentation and types of visas one needs that are questions waiting to be answered.
There are thousands of other details as well, which is why that moron Davis and others wanted to introduce a (now not discussed) 'Great Reform Bill' to incorporate EU law into UK law at a stroke. Easier than dealing with the detail issue by issue, yet Davis also proudly stated he has been going through stuff line by line.
So the article says that some very intelligent people weighed things up and concluded brexit.
In the dark ages some intelligent academics concluded that the earth was flat, yet Magellen set off on a one way trip and returned which was a detail that led to a revision by the academics.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I welcome any website ... from either side ... that provides more information.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
I think what he means is a lot of ridicule from people like him who believe there is no intellectual case for leaving. Fortunately that means all he has is insults which make Leavers stronger in their conviction that it is the right thing to do.
I am so tempted to change your final few words to "it is the right wing thing to do"....
Good thing he didn’t bearing in mind that I am not right wing
Nor me. I don't know why some people think that because you voted for Brexit that you are automatically Right Wing. Some very prominent left wingers are anti the EU. The late Tony Benn and Bob Crow for example. Plus many traditional Labour supporters across the UK. People who voted to leave the EU come from all sort of political background.
I am currently unemployed. Can anyone advise where I can apply for one of the thousands of customs officers needed post Brexit? Or construction jobs needed for the huge lorry park required on the M20 and outside Harwich? Or the new Food Standards Officers? Or Trading Standards Experts needed to vet the quality of imported goods? The employment prospects from Brexit seem great, but how do I apply?
Spain have their own Macron as well in Albert Rivera and his party, Citizens, have been growing in popularity and could well lead the next government with their centre-right, European progressive ideology. Europe is definitely changing, with new leaders coming through and trying to modernise it from within, but it is a great shame that the UK won't be involved or be able to influence it.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
Thank you for the link and I have read the article with interest. The main conclusion is that you didn't have to be thick to vote brexit, that there were things to consider that might justify the vote.
In the dark ages some intelligent academics concluded that the earth was flat, yet Magellen set off on a one way trip and returned which was a detail that led to a revision by the academics.
I don't think they did think the earth was flat.
It was, and still is, a myth put about by Flexiteers and The Sun. (Actually it may have been an Edwardian / Victorian myth)
“Macron and Merkel, as just about everyone in the EU, realize that the EU needs fixing. But the plan to create faster and slower tracks for countries on different issues will only further empower the larger Western countries at the expense of the smaller ones.” - I have an opposing view, I believe it will benefit all countries.
“I believe there should be the opportunity for countries that need to move forward in certain policy areas to do so.” He gave the Eurozone as an example of a multi-speed Europe, where not all 28 member states are taking part.” - Fully agreed.
“The EU faces a choice now about its future," he said. Mr Benn said he favoured a new multi-speed union. He said: "But it will be for European citizens, the 'European Street' to decide, and in making that choice I hope the EU will, at some point, pause and quietly ask itself how it came to lose one of its most important member states."On whether Britain could rejoin the EU, Mr Benn said: "In life, never say never.” - Let’s see where the negotiations eventually take us.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
No he didn't. Could, not would.
Digging large holes with a small spade is pretty pointless. I think we both have a good idea how the French would/could vote in an in/out EU referendum. That is why they will be denied the opportunity to do so. Far too risky from the EU point of view.
Good lord you talk a load of shit. Maybe get a grasp of the English language then try reading it again.
I know how the French would probably vote. They would probably vote to stay in, as most polls indicate support for EU membership is rising across the EU27 thanks to the clusterfuck that is Brexit. As much as I enjoy the other EU rationally looking at the burning car wreckage that is the UK post-referendum, not sure I enjoy being part of the guinea pig in this failed experiment. Cancel Brexit for the good of the UK and fuck what the cretins who want a damaging Brexit think.
I have a perfectly good grasp of my own language. Can you understand that?
Last time I said something that made you cry on here I was flagged 5 times. Maybe I can beat that this time.
''France would have left EU in similar referendum to UK's, says Macron''
Guardian makes mistake in copy. Sounds about right.
Not sure why you had to add the bit about "that paragon of right-wing brainwashing propaganda". Seems unnecessary. You could have just posted the Guardian link and not been a berk.
The actual question Macron was responding to was "might have France voted to Leave" and Macron said probably in a similar context, as in there is probably a chance France might have voted to leave. Certainly not Macron saying France would have voted to leave as some cretins are trying to portray it as.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
No he didn't. Could, not would.
Digging large holes with a small spade is pretty pointless. I think we both have a good idea how the French would/could vote in an in/out EU referendum. That is why they will be denied the opportunity to do so. Far too risky from the EU point of view.
Good lord you talk a load of shit. Maybe get a grasp of the English language then try reading it again.
I know how the French would probably vote. They would probably vote to stay in, as most polls indicate support for EU membership is rising across the EU27 thanks to the clusterfuck that is Brexit. As much as I enjoy the other EU rationally looking at the burning car wreckage that is the UK post-referendum, not sure I enjoy being part of the guinea pig in this failed experiment. Cancel Brexit for the good of the UK and fuck what the cretins who want a damaging Brexit think.
You obnoxious cunt! I have a perfectly good grasp of my own language you fucking prick. Can you understand that?
Last time I said something that made you cry on here I was flagged 5 times. Maybe I can beat that this time.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
I was going to mention, since he put in a TV appearance on Marr which I missed, that Guy Verhofstat, while 'good value' in a Boris Johnson kind of way, is one fairly extreme voice in a Parliament. I had not realised, until I read this tweet, how Marr had amplified his importance in the eyes of a largely unsuspecting audience.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
That won’t happen Seth because all of the economic benefits of a Brexit are either “supposed” or “potential”.
For remainers like you and I it seems ludicrous to embark on such a path when all the “expert” opinion points towards our view of the economic outcome. For so many obviously intelligent people to be prepared to take on that huge risk leads some of us to believe there are other unspoken reasons for voting Brexit. However. We’ve been assured that isn’t the case.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
This in spades.
I really was border line going into the referendum has anybody got a convincing reason for why we should leave and by that I mean not just an optimistic assumption? I am prepared to take it at face value and listen to it without stacking up what we stand to lose.
One way of countering the brexit digs is to highlight the benefit of brexit. Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me. The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: • The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases • It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies • There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive • Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas • It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171 The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7 In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macron-uk-yes-no-brexit-vote-mistake
''France would have left EU in similar referendum to UK's, says Macron''
How one earth can that standpoint be criticised?. It is exactly what Cameron should have said (and done something about). But he couldn't because he was a Tory PM.
Where did I criticise his standpoint?
My post was merely to add comment to the existing discussion on Macron’s speech.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/10/13-nobel-laureates-urge-britain-to-stay-in-european-union/
Anyway, that was two years ago ... probably changed their minds now.
I do normally like Marr so that is disappointing.
Sorry if that was not your intention, but I wouldn't be the first one -today - to have misunderstood the reason why you post a link to a certain story. Perhaps you should consider posting a sentence explaining the extent to which an article chimes with your own view?
The discussion on here was that the most recent comment was being read out of context and that Macron did not mean that.
Personally, I couldn’t care less either way, it is all pedantic.
The more I hear of him, the more I like ... and many of his aims chime with my own.
I am heartened by that, even if in my view brexit voters can be thoughtful and contemplative yet still be wrong to vote the way they did.
The test is still going to be where the devil lurks, in the practical details.
If I have an agreement with my neighbour to share the hedge cutters and that agreement ends, the hedge will still need to be cut somehow and the details sorted out.
This is the current state of affairs. Brexit won, but the consequence seems to be that somehow it will sort itself out without the winners having to confront the dreary details and solve the problems.
Like (ready for this) the Irish border.
Another feature of the article seems to be how much the agenda is about money.
I have relatives in Hamburg and County Clare and can afford to travel to visit them, it is stuff like the EHIC card, the border checks, the declarations of status, the shared air space, the types of documentation and types of visas one needs that are questions waiting to be answered.
There are thousands of other details as well, which is why that moron Davis and others wanted to introduce a (now not discussed) 'Great Reform Bill' to incorporate EU law into UK law at a stroke. Easier than dealing with the detail issue by issue, yet Davis also proudly stated he has been going through stuff line by line.
So the article says that some very intelligent people weighed things up and concluded brexit.
In the dark ages some intelligent academics concluded that the earth was flat, yet Magellen set off on a one way trip and returned which was a detail that led to a revision by the academics.
I don't know why some people think that because you voted for Brexit that you are automatically Right Wing.
Some very prominent left wingers are anti the EU.
The late Tony Benn and Bob Crow for example.
Plus many traditional Labour supporters across the UK.
People who voted to leave the EU come from all sort of political background.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/05/15/meet-ciudadanos-the-party-dreaming-of-a-spanish-remake-of-macrons-success
It was, and still is, a myth put about by Flexiteers and The Sun.
(Actually it may have been an Edwardian / Victorian myth)
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/opinions/brussels-arrogance-could-bring-down-the-eu-hockenos-opinion-intl/index.html
“Macron and Merkel, as just about everyone in the EU, realize that the EU needs fixing. But the plan to create faster and slower tracks for countries on different issues will only further empower the larger Western countries at the expense of the smaller ones.” - I have an opposing view, I believe it will benefit all countries.
independent.com.mt/articles/2018-02-16/local-news/Prime-Minister-Joseph-Muscat-in-favour-of-multi-speed-approach-for-the-EU-6736184927
“I believe there should be the opportunity for countries that need to move forward in certain policy areas to do so.” He gave the Eurozone as an example of a multi-speed Europe, where not all 28 member states are taking part.” - Fully agreed.
https://irishnews.com/news/republicofirelandnews/2018/01/26/news/europe-must-not-face-future-divided-says-michael-d-higgins-1242009/
“The EU faces a choice now about its future," he said. Mr Benn said he favoured a new multi-speed union. He said: "But it will be for European citizens, the 'European Street' to decide, and in making that choice I hope the EU will, at some point, pause and quietly ask itself how it came to lose one of its most important member states."On whether Britain could rejoin the EU, Mr Benn said: "In life, never say never.” - Let’s see where the negotiations eventually take us.
Last time I said something that made you cry on here I was flagged 5 times. Maybe I can beat that this time.
Not sure why you had to add the bit about "that paragon of right-wing brainwashing propaganda". Seems unnecessary. You could have just posted the Guardian link and not been a berk.
The actual question Macron was responding to was "might have France voted to Leave" and Macron said probably in a similar context, as in there is probably a chance France might have voted to leave. Certainly not Macron saying France would have voted to leave as some cretins are trying to portray it as.
And ignore the 99% of comments made by the same politicians stating their support for or the benefits of the EU.
I think he made a pertinent comment.
Beyond being the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by the referendum, brexiters here spend a lot of time dissing remainers like me.
The financials get some people excited so brexiters could prove to us the financial benefits of leaving, or the penalties of staying. However perhaps those in favour of brexit could add in the non financial benefits of brexit to quieten people like me who see it as a crushing disaster.
For remainers like you and I it seems ludicrous to embark on such a path when all the “expert” opinion points towards our view of the economic outcome. For so many obviously intelligent people to be prepared to take on that huge risk leads some of us to believe there are other unspoken reasons for voting Brexit. However. We’ve been assured that isn’t the case.
I really was border line going into the referendum has anybody got a convincing reason for why we should leave and by that I mean not just an optimistic assumption? I am prepared to take it at face value and listen to it without stacking up what we stand to lose.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Woodford Investment Management
Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that:
• The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases
• It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies
• There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive
• Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas
• It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services
We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.
http://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171
The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards. Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not. For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year. It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block. But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction. Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-thecityuk-post-brexit-financial-sector-growth-2017-7
In July 2017, accountants PWC and theCityUK, a group which represents City firms, claimed that Brexit could benefit the UK financial sector to the tune of £43 billion a year – assuming that the government took advantage of the opportunity to change the regulatory regime, and reformed the visa system to make it easier to employ talent.