Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump critic Mitt Romney could prove problematical for Trump i

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited February 20 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump critic Mitt Romney could prove problematical for Trump if, as likely, he’s elected senator

I am running for United States Senate to serve the people of Utah and bring Utah's values to Washington. pic.twitter.com/TDkas6gD2p

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    Romney made two great gags during his last Presidential run:

    "I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman... and a woman... and a woman..."

    And

    "How come the only guy running for the Republican nomination with only one wife is the Mormon?"
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    Romney's eaten my first :(
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    Are the trees the right height in Utah?
  • I like Mitt Romney
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    Republicans increasingly realise they are back where they were with Reagan: a popular but easily influenced president who may have firm beliefs but who has no actual policies, leaving the gap to be filled by whatever is thrashed out by the House GOP. There never was a Trumpian Obamacare replacement or a Trumpian tax plan.

    That is why Romney can say, quoted by OGH's OP: I‘m with the president’s domestic policy agenda of low taxes, low regulation, smaller government, pushing back against the bureaucrats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    With John McCain sadly in the latter throws of cancer a Senator Mitt Romney May end up taking his role in the Senate of leading Republicans standing up to Trump despite the President's belated endorsement of him today.

    He won't get the 2020 nomination though given he only won it in 2012 when the conservative vote was split between Gingrich and Santorum and he would likely be facing an incumbent President
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    Republicans increasingly realise they are back where they were with Reagan: a popular but easily influenced president who may have firm beliefs but who has no actual policies, leaving the gap to be filled by whatever is thrashed out by the House GOP. There never was a Trumpian Obamacare replacement or a Trumpian tax plan.

    That is why Romney can say, quoted by OGH's OP: I‘m with the president’s domestic policy agenda of low taxes, low regulation, smaller government, pushing back against the bureaucrats.

    Reagan had a Democratic House majority throughout his presidency, come November Trump may face the same
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    Romney as GOP candidate is certainly looking good in retrospect, although he was a tin-eared campaigner. WH2020? Well, possibly, he'll be 73, which (remarkably) seems to be about average for the leading contenders on both sides. Perhaps more likely is that he'll be an influential figure in backing someone fresher.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    Romney's campaign song should be Surf City:

    "Two girls for every boy"
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    HYUFD said:



    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    FPT.
    The customs union thing is a big difference I think.
    I don't think Corbyn has a settled position on freedom of movement really, but he is certainly more positive about immigration than May.

    In practice I think there absolutely would be differences between the two.
    The pressure from below on both leaders is in opposite directions.
  • tlg86 said:
    A rare mis-step.

    He's a very successful businessman.

    I may be letting the drinks and dinner night Bain Capital hosted and which I attended a few years ago cloud my judgment.

    Plus I found the moment Romney forget his first name isn't Mitt very endearing.

    And he was right about the 47%
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    Danny565 said:

    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.

    That's fine, but you can't just say 'we'll stay in the Customs Union' (or a similar customs union), it's about the trade-offs to get there. State aid would be one of the impediments, there's no way that the EU is going to allow unfettered tariff-free access to its markets if the UK is free to subsidise manufacturers.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576

    tlg86 said:
    A rare mis-step.

    He's a very successful businessman.
    KFC could use one of those right now.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    tlg86 said:
    A rare mis-step.

    He's a very successful businessman.

    I may be letting the drinks and dinner night Bain Capital hosted and which I attended a few years ago cloud my judgment.

    Plus I found the moment Romney forget his first name isn't Mitt very endearing.

    And he was right about the 47%
    I reckon he'd have been a bad President.
    I also think he'd have been middle of the pack for Republicans since WWII .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union, while confirming Labour would leave the single market to control migration and the respect the Leave vote.

    As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395
    edited February 20
    More interesting than possible polygamy is the prospect of Romney being the first POTUS with magic underwear.

    EDIT: Although Bill C may have had some sorcerous trolleys given his hit rate with the opposite sex.
  • tlg86 said:
    A rare mis-step.

    He's a very successful businessman.
    KFC could use one of those right now.
    I blame DHL, not KFC.

    Having never eaten in a KFC I can't get excited.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,840
    edited February 20
    Anorak said:

    More interesting than possible polygamy is the prospect of Romney being the first POTUS with magic underwear.

    .

    Edited on taste and decency grounds.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited February 20

    Romney as GOP candidate is certainly looking good in retrospect, although he was a tin-eared campaigner. WH2020? Well, possibly, he'll be 73, which (remarkably) seems to be about average for the leading contenders on both sides. Perhaps more likely is that he'll be an influential figure in backing someone fresher.

    On paper Romney was the most qualified candidate to be President on the GOP side since Bush Snr, certainly more qualified on paper than Obama and as he indeed showed when he won the first debate. His problem was he had the charisma of a plank of wood
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424

    Anorak said:

    More interesting than possible polygamy is the prospect of Romney being the first POTUS with magic underwear.

    .

    Edited on taste and decency grounds.
    I presume you mean to make it less tasteful and decent?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395
    HYUFD said:

    Romney as GOP candidate is certainly looking good in retrospect, although he was a tin-eared campaigner. WH2020? Well, possibly, he'll be 73, which (remarkably) seems to be about average for the leading contenders on both sides. Perhaps more likely is that he'll be an influential figure in backing someone fresher.

    On paper Romney was the most qualified candidate to be President on the GOP side since Bush Snr, certainly more qualified on paper than Obama. His problem was he had the charisma of a plank of wood
    He certainly sported a mahogany veneer.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union .... As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    Hasn't May ruled out any kind of customs union....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    tlg86 said:
    A rare mis-step.

    He's a very successful businessman.
    KFC could use one of those right now.
    I blame DHL, not KFC.

    Having never eaten in a KFC I can't get excited.
    I think we can take it that the economy is ticking over well when the BBC have to get 2 consecutive days of "chicken chaos" headlines as their main story. Might get some decent PSBR numbers tomorrow.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union, while confirming Labour would leave the single market to control migration and the respect the Leave vote.

    As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    We literally can't be in the current customs union without being in the EU because it is synonymous with the EU. That doesn't mean that we can't replicate it exactly from outside.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    Danny565 said:

    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.

    That's fine, but you can't just say 'we'll stay in the Customs Union' (or a similar customs union), it's about the trade-offs to get there. State aid would be one of the impediments, there's no way that the EU is going to allow unfettered tariff-free access to its markets if the UK is free to subsidise manufacturers.
    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited February 20
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:



    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    FPT.
    The customs union thing is a big difference I think.
    I don't think Corbyn has a settled position on freedom of movement really, but he is certainly more positive about immigration than May.

    In practice I think there absolutely would be differences between the two.
    The pressure from below on both leaders is in opposite directions.
    It is not a big difference given Corbyn does not want to stay in the current Customs Union.

    On freedom of movement Corbyn has made quite clear Labour is ending it as has Thornberry, he knows he needs to win Leave voting Tory marginals.

    As I said May and Corbyn are two peas of the same old pod on Brexit even if their backbenchers are more pro Remain or pro Leave respectively
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,424
    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:

    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.

    That's fine, but you can't just say 'we'll stay in the Customs Union' (or a similar customs union), it's about the trade-offs to get there. State aid would be one of the impediments, there's no way that the EU is going to allow unfettered tariff-free access to its markets if the UK is free to subsidise manufacturers.
    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto
    Somehow I don't think the GE2017 manifesto represents the limit of the long-term ambitions of McDonnell and Corbyn to destroy capitalism in this country. You have to look at their entire 30-year record. After all, we're told that Corbyn is a man who sticks to his principles, right?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union .... As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    Hasn't May ruled out any kind of customs union....
    More Rees Mogg has, personally May would stay in the customs union if she could get it past her backbenches
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union, while confirming Labour would leave the single market to control migration and the respect the Leave vote.

    As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    We literally can't be in the current customs union without being in the EU because it is synonymous with the EU. That doesn't mean that we can't replicate it exactly from outside.
    Which as Richard N says state aid rules etc make impossible to do from Corbyn's perspective
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    HYUFD said:

    It is not a big difference given Corbyn does not want to stay in the current Customs Union.

    Staying in the current customs union can only be done by cancelling Brexit altogether. You can say the same about the single market given that the EEA doesn't cover everything. This is what has given both May and Corbyn considerable room to obfuscate their positions.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:

    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.

    That's fine, but you can't just say 'we'll stay in the Customs Union' (or a similar customs union), it's about the trade-offs to get there. State aid would be one of the impediments, there's no way that the EU is going to allow unfettered tariff-free access to its markets if the UK is free to subsidise manufacturers.
    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto
    Somehow I don't think the GE2017 manifesto represents the limit of the long-term ambitions of McDonnell and Corbyn to destroy capitalism in this country. You have to look at their entire 30-year record. After all, we're told that Corbyn is a man who sticks to his principles, right?
    A VM for you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited February 20

    HYUFD said:

    It is not a big difference given Corbyn does not want to stay in the current Customs Union.

    Staying in the current customs union can only be done by cancelling Brexit altogether. You can say the same about the single market given that the EEA doesn't cover everything. This is what has given both May and Corbyn considerable room to obfuscate their positions.
    Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU but not in the EU itself though as yet not covered by EU FTAs albeit the Turks are negotiating to achieve that
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not a big difference given Corbyn does not want to stay in the current Customs Union.

    Staying in the current customs union can only be done by cancelling Brexit altogether. You can say the same about the single market given that the EEA doesn't cover everything. This is what has given both May and Corbyn considerable room to obfuscate their positions.
    Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU but not in the EU itself though as yet not covered by EU FTAs
    My point is it's possible to say with a straight face that we will leave the customs union and single market, and at the same time adopt a Norway plus model.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    snip.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union, while confirming Labour would leave the single market to control migration and the respect the Leave vote.

    As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    We literally can't be in the current customs union without being in the EU because it is synonymous with the EU. That doesn't mean that we can't replicate it exactly from outside.
    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395
    edited February 20


    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Ain't the internet grand :)

    The level of debate in that is astounding, and puts present-day politicians to shame.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not a big difference given Corbyn does not want to stay in the current Customs Union.

    Staying in the current customs union can only be done by cancelling Brexit altogether. You can say the same about the single market given that the EEA doesn't cover everything. This is what has given both May and Corbyn considerable room to obfuscate their positions.
    Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU but not in the EU itself though as yet not covered by EU FTAs
    My point is it's possible to say with a straight face that we will leave the customs union and single market, and at the same time adopt a Norway plus model.
    Or more likely Canada Plus given both Corbyn and May's commitment to end free movement
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    Anorak said:


    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Ain't the internet grand :)

    The level of debate in that is astounding, and puts present-day politicians to shame.
    It is often eye-opening to listen/watch political debates and interviews from those days. There was one with Callaghan on BBC parliament the other week. A proper discussion with the journalist. Not today's endless attempts to avoid saying anything other than the two prepared soundbites.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. Borough, to be fair, they didn't have 24 hour rolling news then, nor the internet. I suspect journalists of the time were rather more intelligent/objective than today.

    Also, good afternoon, everyone.

  • "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    Turkey are not in The EU Customs Union. They are in a separate customs union under a separate treaty. The effect of course is the same.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910


    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    Turkey are not in The EU Customs Union. They are in a separate customs union under a separate treaty. The effect of course is the same.
    Only for those areas which it covers.

    http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/

    The Customs Union entered into force on 31 December 1995. It covers all industrial goods but does not address agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. Bilateral trade concessions apply to agricultural as well as coal and steel products.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    Anorak said:


    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Ain't the internet grand :)

    The level of debate in that is astounding, and puts present-day politicians to shame.
    No kidding.

    Well worth a watch.
  • rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609


    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    Turkey are not in The EU Customs Union. They are in a separate customs union under a separate treaty. The effect of course is the same.
    Only for those areas which it covers.

    http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/

    The Customs Union entered into force on 31 December 1995. It covers all industrial goods but does not address agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. Bilateral trade concessions apply to agricultural as well as coal and steel products.
    Customs Unions never involve services, surely. The whole point is they create a frictionless zone for the free movement of goods.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    Cyclefree said:
    In the old days, politicians promised jobs.
    More recently, they promised owls.
    Now, they promise you your very own Goldman Sachs banker.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,148
    On topic, Mitt Romney has found a great way to triangulate with the media. Who would have thought in 2012 that he would ever be able to position himself as middle of the road?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    This is a thread on America, Trump and Mitt Romney, and nearly every post is on Brexit and the Customs Union?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,975
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    May backs leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement as does Corbyn.

    May backs leaving the current Customs Union, Corbyn wants to replace the current Customs Union with a new Customs Union.

    As I said there is not a cigarette paper between them on Brexit and both are closer to each other than the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Soubry and Umunna.

    So there is no point Remainer Tory MPs voting for a Corbyn Brexit 'deal' as it will inevitably replicate a May Brexit 'deal' almost word for word!

    The main difference between a Corbyn Brexit and a May Brexit would I think be about state aid rules. Corbyn would want full freedom to be able to waste taxpayers' money propping up failing industries. That would be a red line for the EU, so a Corbyn Brexit might well end up as a harder Brexit than we'll get under May. In addition Corbyn would want to destroy the City, which again points to a harder Brexit than hopefully we'll actually get.
    Except we're a few days away from Labour formally announcing they want to stay in the Customs Union...
    I don't think Corbyn has the faintest idea what a Customs Union is, TBH.

    I agree Keir Starmer would do things differently, if it were entirely up to him. But then, so would Phil Hammond.
    The big giveaway is Emily Thornberry (who is not only very loyal to Corbyn, but who also is quite considered in what she says and doesn't tend to flip-flop in her public statements in the way even John McDonnell sometimes does) saying this at the weekend:



    As others have said, Corbyn really isn't that fussed about the EU/Brexit one way or the other. If the polling and focus-grouping they're doing is indicating that Labour's target voters don't care about freedom to do trade deals, and don't care about the Customs Union (or don't even know what it is), then I doubt Corbyn will have any objection.
    I watched that interview and again she said Labour wanted 'a' form of Customs Union not the current Customs Union, while confirming Labour would leave the single market to control migration and the respect the Leave vote.

    As I said, not a cigarette paper's difference from May's position on Brexit
    May has a position on Brexit?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395
    edited February 20
    Good work, although I'd sub Never Let Me Go with The Hunger Games.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    stevef said:

    This is a thread on America, Trump and Mitt Romney, and nearly every post is on Brexit and the Customs Union?

    Would you prefer every post to be on how crap Corbyn is?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 750
    Romney perhaps challenging Trump for the nomination? Been a while since there's been a serious challenge to a sitting president - both of them (Carter and Ford) were damaged by the process in the subsequent election.

  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    That sounds like a reasonable solution for us. I thought the downside of being in a custom union was we couldn't sign our own deals but if we can then what's the problem with that?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Cyclefree said:
    Is he saying much different to what Cameron + Osborne were saying in 2010 about rebalancing the economy away from finance? Stronger language maybe.

    Personally I think we haven’t yet reformed sufficiently to stop the kind of systematic failings which led to the previous crisis.

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 948
    Yeah, yeah, Brexit, Romney, Trump, Corbyn, Czech spies and Mad Max.

    I haven't had a KFC in months, yet suddenly have cravings for one because I know I can't get one. Is scarcity playing tricks on my mind? Or am I slowly going mad?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited February 20
    Slightly off topic but I was amused to read about the Trump family attempt to influence the vote in the recent NY Mayoral election.

    The first family tried to cast postal ballots. Trump got his birthday wrong, Melania put “USA” for her county of residence and also forgot to sign it, and Ivanka mailed it too late. All were disallowed. Kushner forget to post his.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-birthday-forget-voting-form-family-ivanka-melania-jared-new-york-mayor-election-a8106681.html
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    I thought it could only sign trade deals in areas that are not covered by the Customs Union such as Agriculture.

    Additionally countries with trade deals with the EU can export to Turkey tariff free but can maintain tariffs against Turkish goods.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    I thought it could only sign trade deals in areas that are not covered by the Customs Union such as Agriculture.

    Additionally countries with trade deals with the EU can export to Turkey tariff free but can maintain tariffs against Turkish goods.
    If people just want the symbolism of the British PM signing a trade deal, who cares what the content of it is?
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    That sounds like a reasonable solution for us. I thought the downside of being in a custom union was we couldn't sign our own deals but if we can then what's the problem with that?
    It is not a good solution. It opens up Turkey to tariff free imports via EU trade deals but does not remove tariffs on its exports to those same countries. In addition it can only sign FTA's in areas not covered by the customs union agreement with the EU.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,964
    edited February 20
    stevef said:

    This is a thread on America, Trump and Mitt Romney, and nearly every post is on Brexit and the Customs Union?

    Some remainers have a mild form of mental illness or obsession.

    Sort of like a mid life crisis .

    I mean who grows up caring whether we are in or out of a continental wide protectionist trade cartel ?

    Man up and get some punk back in your life.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,676
    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:

    This is a thread on America, Trump and Mitt Romney, and nearly every post is on Brexit and the Customs Union?

    Some remainers have a mild form of mental illness
    Classy
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    edited February 20
    rcs1000 said:


    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    Turkey are not in The EU Customs Union. They are in a separate customs union under a separate treaty. The effect of course is the same.
    Only for those areas which it covers.

    http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/

    The Customs Union entered into force on 31 December 1995. It covers all industrial goods but does not address agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. Bilateral trade concessions apply to agricultural as well as coal and steel products.
    Customs Unions never involve services, surely. The whole point is they create a frictionless zone for the free movement of goods.
    A customs union is a common schedule of tariffs and is recognised as such by the WTO. It doesn't include standardised product regulation, although that might be a necessity for agreement and for frictionless border crossing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    Andrew said:

    Romney perhaps challenging Trump for the nomination? Been a while since there's been a serious challenge to a sitting president - both of them (Carter and Ford) were damaged by the process in the subsequent election.

    Don't forget LBJ. Although a good while ago now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    edited February 20
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Is he saying much different to what Cameron + Osborne were saying in 2010 about rebalancing the economy away from finance? Stronger language maybe.

    Personally I think we haven’t yet reformed sufficiently to stop the kind of systematic failings which led to the previous crisis.
    There’s a difference between wishing to rebalance the economy away from financial services over time, and wishing to kill the City (and its £100bn annual tax revenues) while simultaneously promising massive extra government spending.

    Corbyn’s annual black hole is now around £200bn, or £1trn over the life of a Parliament. Or £3trn over a Parliament using Gordon Brown’s favoured method of aggregating annual increases from a zero base.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,676

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    That sounds like a reasonable solution for us. I thought the downside of being in a custom union was we couldn't sign our own deals but if we can then what's the problem with that?
    It is not a good solution. It opens up Turkey to tariff free imports via EU trade deals but does not remove tariffs on its exports to those same countries. In addition it can only sign FTA's in areas not covered by the customs union agreement with the EU.
    PB's Brexit experts opine.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    I thought it could only sign trade deals in areas that are not covered by the Customs Union such as Agriculture.

    Additionally countries with trade deals with the EU can export to Turkey tariff free but can maintain tariffs against Turkish goods.
    "In addition to the Customs Union with the EU, Turkey has signed Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, European Free Trade Area (EFTA), Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Serbia, South Korea, and Tunisia. Additionally, the FTAs signed with Lebanon, Kosovo, Singapore and Faroe Islands are under ratification process. Besides, the FTA negotiation with Ghana was concluded and it is expected to be signed soon."
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    edited February 20
    So pensioner turnout was actually UP? If that's accurate, then it rather shoots one of the PBTories' main hopes for doing better at the next election (that a ton of Tory-supporting oldies sat out last time because they thought the result was certain, but will turn out next time).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,436
    Danny565 said:

    So pensioner turnout was actually UP? If that's accurate, then it rather shoots one of the PBTories' main hopes for doing better at the next election (that a ton of Tory-supporting oldies sat out last time because they thought the result was certain, but will turn out next time).
    It wasn't up very much though. There's room for improvement.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Current members of the customs union include all EU member states plus the European micro-states (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino) and Turkey. These latter states have tariff-free access to the EU but must keep their external tariffs aligned with the EU. They are not members of the EU and hence do not share free movement of people or capital. The Channel Islands, Isle of man and British bases on Cyprus are also members of the customs union but outside the EU."

    https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-european-single-market-and-customs-union/

    That article is not correct. Turkey is not a member of the customs unions as:

    1. The EU's trade deals do not include Turkey, and vice versa.
    2. Turkey's customs union does not include agricultural products.
    So if we sign a deal like Turkey's deal we can still sign our own third party trade deals - and control our own agricultural policy?

    Or are Turkey forbidden from entering third party trade deals?
    Turkey has its own trade deals, but does not benefit from the EU's deals. It is a separate signatory to the Euromed agreements.
    I thought it could only sign trade deals in areas that are not covered by the Customs Union such as Agriculture.

    Additionally countries with trade deals with the EU can export to Turkey tariff free but can maintain tariffs against Turkish goods.
    "In addition to the Customs Union with the EU, Turkey has signed Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, European Free Trade Area (EFTA), Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Serbia, South Korea, and Tunisia. Additionally, the FTAs signed with Lebanon, Kosovo, Singapore and Faroe Islands are under ratification process. Besides, the FTA negotiation with Ghana was concluded and it is expected to be signed soon."
    I'm sure the Faroes do a lot of trade with Turkey!!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609

    In addition it can only sign FTA's in areas not covered by the customs union agreement with the EU.

    Not true. See the Singapore deal (here), and you see that it covers pretty much all bilateral trade, not just ones not covered by the EU's CU.

    Now, this does of course introduce the possibility of goods coming or going "via" the EU to evade tariffs, but I think Rules of Origin mostly solve that issue.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    edited February 20
    Andrew said:

    Romney perhaps challenging Trump for the nomination? Been a while since there's been a serious challenge to a sitting president - both of them (Carter and Ford) were damaged by the process in the subsequent election.

    Or perhaps a friend and associate of Mitt Romney, who ran as an independent in 2016. Evan McMullin is 500/1 on BFexch. I have had a modest nibble. He may re-emerge in the Republican Primaries.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,436
    Actually that makes sense because the assumption has always been that there simply arent enough 18-25 year olds to make a major impact on the election. Since there was a major impact, it must have been caused by older age groups than 18-25.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    AndyJS said:

    Danny565 said:

    So pensioner turnout was actually UP? If that's accurate, then it rather shoots one of the PBTories' main hopes for doing better at the next election (that a ton of Tory-supporting oldies sat out last time because they thought the result was certain, but will turn out next time).
    It wasn't up very much though. There's room for improvement.
    2015 was a record-breaking big gap between youth turnout and pensioner turnout. If, contrary to earlier projections, that gap actually increased further in 2017, then further "room for improvement" does not seem particularly likely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,609
    Danny565 said:

    So pensioner turnout was actually UP? If that's accurate, then it rather shoots one of the PBTories' main hopes for doing better at the next election (that a ton of Tory-supporting oldies sat out last time because they thought the result was certain, but will turn out next time).
    It was up, because turnout overall was up. Pensioners as a % of total fell.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,494

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    I've no idea how old you are William, but by and large, the UK was very much in favour of the EEC. As we see, less enamoured of the EU. It's a pity that it came wrapped in all the trappings of a state.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Is he saying much different to what Cameron + Osborne were saying in 2010 about rebalancing the economy away from finance? Stronger language maybe.

    Personally I think we haven’t yet reformed sufficiently to stop the kind of systematic failings which led to the previous crisis.
    There’s a difference between wishing to rebalance the economy away from financial services over time, and wishing to kill the City (and its £100bn annual tax revenues) while simultaneously promising massive extra government spending.

    Corbyn’s annual black hole is now around £200bn, or £1trn over the life of a Parliament. Or £3trn over a Parliament using Gordon Brown’s favoured method of aggregating annual increases from a zero base.
    How does that compare with the black hole (or pot of gold) from Tory Brexit?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    rcs1000 said:

    Danny565 said:

    So pensioner turnout was actually UP? If that's accurate, then it rather shoots one of the PBTories' main hopes for doing better at the next election (that a ton of Tory-supporting oldies sat out last time because they thought the result was certain, but will turn out next time).
    It was up, because turnout overall was up. Pensioners as a % of total fell.
    But quite a few people have been saying that the reason the Tories lost their majority was because lots of elderly Tory voters from 2015 didn't turn out last time, based on some of the earlier polling suggesting elderly turnout fell. And that, consequently, all that will need to happen at the next election is for those oldies, scared into thinking Corbyn could actually win, to actually turn out, and that the Tories will then get a majority even with all other things being equal. That seems like it just wasn't true.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    F1: Renault livery looking tasty. And Sauber announced about four new backers today.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    I've no idea how old you are William, but by and large, the UK was very much in favour of the EEC. As we see, less enamoured of the EU. It's a pity that it came wrapped in all the trappings of a state.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that. People needed persuading of the arguments.

    http://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

    Gallup polls initially found the public almost evenly divided on the decision [in 1973], but by the start of the following year there was a two-to-one majority believing the country had been wrong to join.

    In February 1975, Gallup found that 41% of people said they would vote to leave in an immediate referendum and only 33% to stay in.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    I've no idea how old you are William, but by and large, the UK was very much in favour of the EEC. As we see, less enamoured of the EU. It's a pity that it came wrapped in all the trappings of a state.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that. People needed persuading of the arguments.

    http://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

    Gallup polls initially found the public almost evenly divided on the decision [in 1973], but by the start of the following year there was a two-to-one majority believing the country had been wrong to join.

    In February 1975, Gallup found that 41% of people said they would vote to leave in an immediate referendum and only 33% to stay in.
    The complacency of Remain until about 11pm on the day of the poll itself was excruciating.

    I'm sure someone predicted 70/30 result on here?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Is he saying much different to what Cameron + Osborne were saying in 2010 about rebalancing the economy away from finance? Stronger language maybe.

    Personally I think we haven’t yet reformed sufficiently to stop the kind of systematic failings which led to the previous crisis.
    There’s a difference between wishing to rebalance the economy away from financial services over time, and wishing to kill the City (and its £100bn annual tax revenues) while simultaneously promising massive extra government spending.

    Corbyn’s annual black hole is now around £200bn, or £1trn over the life of a Parliament. Or £3trn over a Parliament using Gordon Brown’s favoured method of aggregating annual increases from a zero base.
    I’d encourage you to read the speech. It’s a very sensible diagnosis of the challenges our economy faces. He certainly isn’t talking about killing the city here:

    “finance has a central and essential role to play in a functioning economy.”
    “Without access to finance, how would the entrepreneur or business person just starting out find the means to get their idea off the ground?

    How would a growing company afford new equipment that will make their business more productive and more profitable? Or expand their activities by opening new premises?

    Finance is the grease that oils the wheels of our economy, and without it, economic activity would seize up.”

    This paragraph is on the money for me:

    “We know the results, money flows away from the productive activities that you are engaged in that create jobs and exports to instead inflate asset prices, concentrating money in the hands of a few owners, not producers, while households become more reliant on borrowing.

    And we end up with an economy with more risk, more volatility and more instability.”
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,494

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    I've no idea how old you are William, but by and large, the UK was very much in favour of the EEC. As we see, less enamoured of the EU. It's a pity that it came wrapped in all the trappings of a state.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that. People needed persuading of the arguments.

    http://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

    Gallup polls initially found the public almost evenly divided on the decision [in 1973], but by the start of the following year there was a two-to-one majority believing the country had been wrong to join.

    In February 1975, Gallup found that 41% of people said they would vote to leave in an immediate referendum and only 33% to stay in.
    You're right, my apologies - my memory was deceiving me - I was in my twenties in the 80s, which is when support peaked.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    edited February 20

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.



    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    I've no idea how old you are William, but by and large, the UK was very much in favour of the EEC. As we see, less enamoured of the EU. It's a pity that it came wrapped in all the trappings of a state.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that. People needed persuading of the arguments.

    http://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

    Gallup polls initially found the public almost evenly divided on the decision [in 1973], but by the start of the following year there was a two-to-one majority believing the country had been wrong to join.

    In February 1975, Gallup found that 41% of people said they would vote to leave in an immediate referendum and only 33% to stay in.
    Foot was arguing that the EEC had the explicit aim of becoming more than a Common Market.

    Perhaps this just demonstrates that voters use referendums to kick their current masters, Wilson in 75, Salmond in Sindyref, Cameron in Brexit etc. Smart politicians know this.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,676
    rcs1000 said:

    In addition it can only sign FTA's in areas not covered by the customs union agreement with the EU.

    Not true. See the Singapore deal (here), and you see that it covers pretty much all bilateral trade, not just ones not covered by the EU's CU.

    Now, this does of course introduce the possibility of goods coming or going "via" the EU to evade tariffs, but I think Rules of Origin mostly solve that issue.
    So in short, you two voted to Leave with no clear idea about what the alternative options were?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    There's flexibility in the rules to allow state aid in one form or another.

    Apparently the UK spends 0.35% of GDP on state aid compared to 0.62% in France and 1.22% in Germany (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469)

    Corbyn may believe that EU rules would hinder him, but that view doesn't seem to be shared by experts.

    "Two lawyers expert in EU state aid law, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi, say they have tested 26 economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto to see if they fall foul of any EU law. They conclude most do not even potentially fall within the scope of the state aid rules.

    They believe there are only two measures which would even have to be notified: the state investment bank/regional bank proposition and the state funded regional energy suppliers. It is likely that both could be structured to be cleared."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/corbyn-reignites-labour-debate-over-eu-rules-on-state-aid-and-socialist-manifesto

    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Well worth watching. Heath had no common touch but was extremely well prepared and erudite. Both he and Foot put our current generation of politicians to shame. An interview without constant interruption gets so much more revealing and informative.

    Clearly economic and monetary convergence were front and centre in that referendum too.
    The standard of both politicians and journalists was somewhat better back in the day.
    High quality politicians and debates led to a landslide win for the pro-Europeans...
    If the EEC had been on the ballot in 2016, it would have won a landslide too.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,593
    Anorak said:


    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Ain't the internet grand :)

    The level of debate in that is astounding, and puts present-day politicians to shame.
    Looking back, Heath was really a very good debater and Conservative leader. Shame he was undermined by Thatcher and her gang.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum:

    http://www.annblack.co.uk/national-policy-forum-17-18-february-2018/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Is he saying much different to what Cameron + Osborne were saying in 2010 about rebalancing the economy away from finance? Stronger language maybe.

    Personally I think we haven’t yet reformed sufficiently to stop the kind of systematic failings which led to the previous crisis.
    There’s a difference between wishing to rebalance the economy away from financial services over time, and wishing to kill the City (and its £100bn annual tax revenues) while simultaneously promising massive extra government spending.

    Corbyn’s annual black hole is now around £200bn, or £1trn over the life of a Parliament. Or £3trn over a Parliament using Gordon Brown’s favoured method of aggregating annual increases from a zero base.
    I’d encourage you to read the speech. It’s a very sensible diagnosis of the challenges our economy faces. He certainly isn’t talking about killing the city here:

    “finance has a central and essential role to play in a functioning economy.”
    “Without access to finance, how would the entrepreneur or business person just starting out find the means to get their idea off the ground?

    How would a growing company afford new equipment that will make their business more productive and more profitable? Or expand their activities by opening new premises?

    Finance is the grease that oils the wheels of our economy, and without it, economic activity would seize up.”

    This paragraph is on the money for me:

    “We know the results, money flows away from the productive activities that you are engaged in that create jobs and exports to instead inflate asset prices, concentrating money in the hands of a few owners, not producers, while households become more reliant on borrowing.

    And we end up with an economy with more risk, more volatility and more instability.”
    His actions, and those of his henchman McDonnell, give the impression of wanting to drive the money lenders out of the temple. One set-piece speech doesn’t undo 30 years of protesting against the evil capitalist spivs and bankers.
  • PClipp said:

    Anorak said:


    Interestingly this came up in the 1975 campaign too. Watch Heath's answer from 15:30.

    Ain't the internet grand :)

    The level of debate in that is astounding, and puts present-day politicians to shame.
    Looking back, Heath was really a very good debater and Conservative leader. Shame he was undermined by Thatcher and her gang.
    Heath undermined himself by losing three out of four general elections.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In addition it can only sign FTA's in areas not covered by the customs union agreement with the EU.

    Not true. See the Singapore deal (here), and you see that it covers pretty much all bilateral trade, not just ones not covered by the EU's CU.

    Now, this does of course introduce the possibility of goods coming or going "via" the EU to evade tariffs, but I think Rules of Origin mostly solve that issue.
    So in short, you two voted to Leave with no clear idea about what the alternative options were?
    It turns out we should have sent Julia Hartley-Brewer to negotiate.
This discussion has been closed.