Our conclusion is that most estimates of the impact of Brexit in the UK, both short-term and long-term, have exaggerated the degree of potential damage to the UK economy. We stress at this point that this is not a politically-driven exercise. Most of the four-person team behind the research for this and our other papers voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum and would do so again if given the chance. Our purpose is rather to establish a sound basis for the ongoing debate on the likely potential economic impact of Brexit, and more generally to question the quality of economic analysis in dealing with major, macroeconomic policy issue like Brexit.
Presumptuous because I'm not an economist but there's a lot in there that doesn't look right to me. A couple of examples.
They assert the UK joining the EU made no economic difference in terms of GDP per capita. The UK underperformed the EU before joining and matched the EU afterwards. The report claims the previous underperformance wasn't because the UK was outside the EU as the UK growth rate remained more or less the same after joining as before, over the long term. It vaguely refers to the US as a counterfactual but fails to mention that the UK also underperformed the US before joining the EU and has broadly performed the same since.
It has misread the Short term Treasury projections as out-turns, rather than costs of Brexit relative to the baseline. The Treasury report was clear on what it was measuring.
It claims, "The Treasury makes no allowance for changes in migration as a consequence of Brexit. It thus assumes that any change in GDP is mirrored by a change in per capita GDP." That assertion in turn implies population size has no effect on overall GDP. In fact studies show that each immigrant increases GDP almost exactly in proportion.
These look pretty big fails to me. There are plenty more.
As for 'negative', that's irrelevant. We should aim to be realistic, whether 'positive' or 'negative'.
How do you define 'realistic' in this case?
You seem to think the EU should fail soon because it will fail eventually. In which case, virtually any governmental structure should be brought down now, as they will all probably fail eventually, especially if you use 'centuries' as your baseline.
It has misread the Short term Treasury projections as out-turns, rather than costs of Brexit relative to the baseline. The Treasury report was clear on what it was measuring.
As for 'negative', that's irrelevant. We should aim to be realistic, whether 'positive' or 'negative'.
How do you define 'realistic' in this case?
You seem to think the EU should fail soon because it will fail eventually. In which case, virtually any governmental structure should be brought down now, as they will all probably fail eventually, especially if you use 'centuries' as your baseline.
It's International Women's Day so MD is probably confused and distracted trying to work out why there isn't an International Men's Day.
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
But with the BBC reporting that there are so many things the government should be doing to boost our growth regardless of Brexit, with academics pointing out that the economic effects of Brexit are vastly overstated and with the SNP falling back as predicted I am in danger of bursting with smugness this morning and am off to do some real work!
Being wrong about something (sing.) is a pretty good predictor for being wrong about things (pl.). That should deflate any smugness in those who voted for May, and for the painful and protracted process through which she's supposed be leading us.
As for 'negative', that's irrelevant. We should aim to be realistic, whether 'positive' or 'negative'.
How do you define 'realistic' in this case?
You seem to think the EU should fail soon because it will fail eventually. In which case, virtually any governmental structure should be brought down now, as they will all probably fail eventually, especially if you use 'centuries' as your baseline.
It's International Women's Day so MD is probably confused and distracted trying to work out why there isn't an International Men's Day.
Mr. Jessop, I didn't say it should fail soon, but that the damage caused would be less if it failed sooner rather than later.
(Snip)
You are assuming that it'll fail at some indeterminate time in the future, and that the damage will be less if it failed sooner.
Yet it can be argued that the least damage will be done if it doesn't fail, and therefore surely that's the outcome we should want if we take avoiding damage *to them* as being a good thing?
Good header Alastair. What the British cynics don't get is how popular the Euro is. It's the glue that holds together even the major recalcitrant nations in your column 4.
Half of column 4 isn't in the Euro.....
I was thinking of Greece and Italy as the major recalcitrant nations and neither would give up membership beacause of the popularity of the Euro. Nothing would persuade the Italians to go back to the Lira and even Greece with their ruined economy showed no desire to return to the Drachma
I can't help thinking that Greece should have defaulted and left the Euro. In the short term it would have been incredibly painful but Greece would probably be recovering by now. Greece hasn't been in the news as much lately but it's still in dire financial straits.
In 2008 it had a debt to GDP ratio of 109%. By 2013 it was 177% and it's now 194% despite the fact the country is running a primary surplus. If Greece was a business it would have gone into administration long ago.
As for Italy, yes, the Lira wasn't always much loved, but it was good for exports
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
Some of us of course predicted this when being assured that a vote for leave was a vote to break up the United Kingdom.
*cough*Northern Ireland*cough*
You think NI is going to be leaving the UK? When and do you want a bet on it?
But in any event my prediction was that Brexit would make life more difficult for the SNP for exactly the reasons that Curtice has identified.
You only seem to be considering the short term though (not an uncommon trait among Leavers). The SNP government has been in power more than 10 years and is tired. They'll probably lose power in the next election as is the normal course of democracy. In 10 years' time when their successor unionist government is itself tired, and the potential ill effects of Brexit will have been a reality for some years, things might look very different and an independent Scotland might then look a very real prospect. In addition, as with Alistair Meeks' point on Brexit, demographics will move inexorably in favour of independence if younger voters do not change their mind on the issue as they get older.
Mr. Hemmelig, disagree. If leaving the EU is seen to turn out poorly, it'll strengthen the economic argument for the UK. If leaving the EU is seen to turn out well, there'll be less discontent for the separatists to exploit.
Leaving the EU is likely, from a Scottish independence (unionist) perspective, win-win.
Some of us of course predicted this when being assured that a vote for leave was a vote to break up the United Kingdom.
*cough*Northern Ireland*cough*
You think NI is going to be leaving the UK? When and do you want a bet on it?
But in any event my prediction was that Brexit would make life more difficult for the SNP for exactly the reasons that Curtice has identified.
You only seem to be considering the short term though (not an uncommon trait among Leavers). The SNP government has been in power more than 10 years and is tired. They'll probably lose power in the next election as is the normal course of democracy. In 10 years' time when their successor unionist government is itself tired, and the potential ill effects of Brexit will have been a reality for some years, things might look very different and an independent Scotland might then look a very real prospect. In addition, as with Alistair Meeks' point on Brexit, demographics will move inexorably in favour of independence if younger voters do not change their mind on the issue as they get older.
I wonder whether we might still see the SNP in government next time around. I can see the LDs working with Con or Lab but I'm not convinced Con and Lab could work together, especially as Leonard is quite left wing. Could we even see Lab and SNP?
As for 'negative', that's irrelevant. We should aim to be realistic, whether 'positive' or 'negative'.
How do you define 'realistic' in this case?
You seem to think the EU should fail soon because it will fail eventually. In which case, virtually any governmental structure should be brought down now, as they will all probably fail eventually, especially if you use 'centuries' as your baseline.
It's International Women's Day so MD is probably confused and distracted trying to work out why there isn't an International Men's Day.
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
*This number could increase, subject to the will of the people of Scotland, Catalonia, etc. Other nations not in the EU would also be part of the mix.
Some of us of course predicted this when being assured that a vote for leave was a vote to break up the United Kingdom.
*cough*Northern Ireland*cough*
You think NI is going to be leaving the UK? When and do you want a bet on it?
But in any event my prediction was that Brexit would make life more difficult for the SNP for exactly the reasons that Curtice has identified.
You only seem to be considering the short term though (not an uncommon trait among Leavers). The SNP government has been in power more than 10 years and is tired. They'll probably lose power in the next election as is the normal course of democracy. In 10 years' time when their successor unionist government is itself tired, and the potential ill effects of Brexit will have been a reality for some years, things might look very different and an independent Scotland might then look a very real prospect. In addition, as with Alistair Meeks' point on Brexit, demographics will move inexorably in favour of independence if younger voters do not change their mind on the issue as they get older.
I wonder whether we might still see the SNP in government next time around. I can see the LDs working with Con or Lab but I'm not convinced Con and Lab could work together, especially as Leonard is quite left wing. Could we even see Lab and SNP?
I'd be very, very surprised. Way too much bad blood, I think.
Perhaps TUD can provide an SNP perpective, if he's around...
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
Mr. Hemmelig, disagree. If leaving the EU is seen to turn out poorly, it'll strengthen the economic argument for the UK. If leaving the EU is seen to turn out well, there'll be less discontent for the separatists to exploit.
Leaving the EU is likely, from a Scottish independence (unionist) perspective, win-win.
You might be right, you might well not be. It's just impossible to know at this stage, we haven't even Brexited yet. Given that NI is very likely to achieve some kind of special status in the Brexit deal I can easily see Scotland, which voted even more strongly for Remain, saying we want some of that too.
Mr. Hemmelig, Scotland also voted to remain in the UK, and has no history comparable with that surrounding Northern Ireland/the Good Friday Agreement. I'm sure Sturgeon will do her best to stir up discord, though.
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
*This number could increase, subject to the will of the people of Scotland, Catalonia, etc. Other nations not in the EU would also be part of the mix.
Not hard to see why Europeans tend to see Brits as arrogant. Not only do you want to Leave the EU you want to lecture the remaining members on how to structure their affairs afterwards! What happens to the EU after Brexit will rightly be none of our business.
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Mr. Hemmelig, Scotland also voted to remain in the UK, and has no history comparable with that surrounding Northern Ireland/the Good Friday Agreement. I'm sure Sturgeon will do her best to stir up discord, though.
Ignore the short term politics and look at the big picture. Devolution has clearly given Scotland a renewed national confidence and vastly increased the visible differences between it and England. When I visit Scotland today it is basically a different country to England, unrecognisable from the Scotland I visited as a child in the 80s which was much more visibly part of the UK. As Tam Dalyell said, devolution is a one-way highway to independence with no exits....all there is to debate is the degree of independence (DevoMax or the full monty) and the speed of travel. FWIW I fully expect to see an independent Scotland in my lifetime (I'm early 40s).
I've never been much of a fan of Farage but to be fair he has never disguised the fact he'd like to see the EU and Euro implode and let all the "States" of the EU go back to being independent trading nations again like there were in the days of the Common Market.
The nature of contemporary and future technology and industry makes that impossible. See JC's example of the Mini going back and forward to France to have the cam angle sensor (or whatever the fuck it was) fitted. Enterprises, industry and technology is now transnational and therefore so must be the economic and political framework in which they operate.
future technology? If you were starting with a clean sheet you'd have all the components of a car manufactured and fitted within the same square mile, rather than this polluting and timewasting crap of sending a car to Latvia to have the nearside indicator lens installed, and then on to Belgium for the wing mirrors. I assume that is how car mfring actually worked pre-war, and I would hope that we can work back towards it. The sensible long term solution is that stuff gets made where it is to be used, and hopefully a combination of automation and 3d printing, plus the levelling up of the developing world so that arbitraging the cost of labour ceases to be a thing, will bring that about. In which case world trade will be in commodities and not much else, and all this stuff about tariffs and duties and stuff will be of historical interest only.
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
*This number could increase, subject to the will of the people of Scotland, Catalonia, etc. Other nations not in the EU would also be part of the mix.
Not hard to see why Europeans tend to see Brits as arrogant. Not only do you want to Leave the EU you want to lecture the remaining members on how to structure their affairs afterwards! What happens to the EU after Brexit will rightly be none of our business.
One could have said the same about the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia but the EU were quick enough to stick their noses in there.
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
Brexit has certainly done much to produce a Scottish Conservative revival, by making them the natural choice for Scots who are pro-Brexit and pro-Union.
Some of us of course predicted this when being assured that a vote for leave was a vote to break up the United Kingdom.
*cough*Northern Ireland*cough*
You think NI is going to be leaving the UK? When and do you want a bet on it?
But in any event my prediction was that Brexit would make life more difficult for the SNP for exactly the reasons that Curtice has identified.
You only seem to be considering the short term though (not an uncommon trait among Leavers). The SNP government has been in power more than 10 years and is tired. They'll probably lose power in the next election as is the normal course of democracy. In 10 years' time when their successor unionist government is itself tired, and the potential ill effects of Brexit will have been a reality for some years, things might look very different and an independent Scotland might then look a very real prospect. In addition, as with Alistair Meeks' point on Brexit, demographics will move inexorably in favour of independence if younger voters do not change their mind on the issue as they get older.
I wonder whether we might still see the SNP in government next time around. I can see the LDs working with Con or Lab but I'm not convinced Con and Lab could work together, especially as Leonard is quite left wing. Could we even see Lab and SNP?
I can't see the LDs risking a coalition with the Tories at a national/devolved level for a generation, especially given 4 of their 12 MPs are represented by Scottish seats (and they came within 2 votes at the last GE of making it 5)
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
National tariff policies and customs controls on every border?
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
Mr. Hemmelig, Scotland also voted to remain in the UK, and has no history comparable with that surrounding Northern Ireland/the Good Friday Agreement. I'm sure Sturgeon will do her best to stir up discord, though.
Ignore the short term politics and look at the big picture. Devolution has clearly given Scotland a renewed national confidence and vastly increased the visible differences between it and England. When I visit Scotland today it is basically a different country to England, unrecognisable from the Scotland I visited as a child in the 80s which was much more visibly part of the UK. As Tam Dalyell said, devolution is a one-way highway to independence with no exits....all there is to debate is the degree of independence (DevoMax or the full monty) and the speed of travel. FWIW I fully expect to see an independent Scotland in my lifetime (I'm early 40s).
Without devolution Scotland may well eventually have pushed for full independence with a permanent SNP majority at Westminster.
Of course the second independence referendum in Quebec effectively killed off independence after devomax was effectively given to the Quebec Parliament which managed to secure a narrow 51% to 49% anti independence majority
I've never been much of a fan of Farage but to be fair he has never disguised the fact he'd like to see the EU and Euro implode and let all the "States" of the EU go back to being independent trading nations again like there were in the days of the Common Market.
The nature of contemporary and future technology and industry makes that impossible. See JC's example of the Mini going back and forward to France to have the cam angle sensor (or whatever the fuck it was) fitted. Enterprises, industry and technology is now transnational and therefore so must be the economic and political framework in which they operate.
future technology? If you were starting with a clean sheet you'd have all the components of a car manufactured and fitted within the same square mile, rather than this polluting and timewasting crap of sending a car to Latvia to have the nearside indicator lens installed, and then on to Belgium for the wing mirrors. I assume that is how car mfring actually worked pre-war, and I would hope that we can work back towards it. The sensible long term solution is that stuff gets made where it is to be used, and hopefully a combination of automation and 3d printing, plus the levelling up of the developing world so that arbitraging the cost of labour ceases to be a thing, will bring that about. In which case world trade will be in commodities and not much else, and all this stuff about tariffs and duties and stuff will be of historical interest only.
To take cars as the operative example some major components are now so complicated and expensive to develop that not all manufacturers can design and make every part of the product. eg ZF 8HP transmission which is made in Germany and used in most Jaguars, all Bentleys and all Rolls-Royces. None of those companies, even with the heft of VAG or BMW or Tata behind them, are going to be able to design and build their own transmissions and still compete on price. This also happens with brakes, electronics, suspension components and even engines. Car manufacturers are now systems integrators at the centre of a continental logistics network. We're never going back to the days of car manufacturers making most parts of the finished product themselves.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
*This number could increase, subject to the will of the people of Scotland, Catalonia, etc. Other nations not in the EU would also be part of the mix.
Not hard to see why Europeans tend to see Brits as arrogant. Not only do you want to Leave the EU you want to lecture the remaining members on how to structure their affairs afterwards! What happens to the EU after Brexit will rightly be none of our business.
One could have said the same about the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia but the EU were quick enough to stick their noses in there.
It's a fair point and applies at least equally to the US. If we hadn't been so triumphalist and complacent about the collapse of the USSR Russia might not be such a thorn in our side now.
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
Within the "western world", national borders get less relevant every year. It's a gradual but inexorable process because of communications technology, improving transport links, and global corporations. That's the tragedy of arguing about the EU, and our relationship with it, ad infinitum. The only bit of it that matters in even the medium term is the time and energy being wasted on it. Glaring social, economic, and geopolitical problems are being ignored.
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
Since the EU allowed/encouraged millions of economic migrants (mostly young men) from north africa and the middle east to enter Germany, the far right party has gained seats until it is now the official opposition.
Does this surge in nationalism
a) increase the chance of Germany starting a war in Europe
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
Yes, and I said 'other factors'. However I find it staggering to think that anyone can believe the EU has not helped peace. It is one of many factors; the argument should come on what scale that importance was. For me, it rates quite highly (and more so than NATO IMO).
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Remember Churchill warning about Germany rearming before they started the second world war, and the complacency in the UK then.
Instead of Germant rearming now they should achieve their 2% defence spending target by paying for British forces to keep the peace.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
Some of us of course predicted this when being assured that a vote for leave was a vote to break up the United Kingdom.
*cough*Northern Ireland*cough*
You think NI is going to be leaving the UK? When and do you want a bet on it?
But in any event my prediction was that Brexit would make life more difficult for the SNP for exactly the reasons that Curtice has identified.
You only seem to be considering the short term though (not an uncommon trait among Leavers). The SNP government has been in power more than 10 years and is tired. They'll probably lose power in the next election as is the normal course of democracy. In 10 years' time when their successor unionist government is itself tired, and the potential ill effects of Brexit will have been a reality for some years, things might look very different and an independent Scotland might then look a very real prospect. In addition, as with Alistair Meeks' point on Brexit, demographics will move inexorably in favour of independence if younger voters do not change their mind on the issue as they get older.
I wonder whether we might still see the SNP in government next time around. I can see the LDs working with Con or Lab but I'm not convinced Con and Lab could work together, especially as Leonard is quite left wing. Could we even see Lab and SNP?
I'd be very, very surprised. Way too much bad blood, I think.
Perhaps TUD can provide an SNP perpective, if he's around...
You're right on the bad blood, the worst of it on the SLab side imo (I would say that, wouldn't I). Since most of the current bitterness is based on Lab voters going to the SNP, and SLab believe that the crest of the Corbyn wave will get them back, I don't see any rapprochement happening soon. The very most I would expect is some sort of vague, nothing on paper arrangement such as existed between the SNP & Tories 2007-11. I still see the SNP comfortably being the largest party at the next Holyrood election.
I'm beginning to think that Unionist tactical voting has maxed out, the immovable object of Labourites who would never vote Con in a month of Sundays meeting the irresistible force of Cons who wouldn't touch Lab with a barge pole. I can see both parties bumping along on the 25-30% mark for a while. Of course the Unionist parties (mirroring the UK picture) have their own Brexit problems, SCons with a Remain leader in charge of a largely Brexity party & voters, SLab a Leave leader in charge of a Remain party and the SLDs desperately in search of relevance.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Swiss move closer on referendum on free movement with EU. Jan 2018
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
That doesn't read much like an 'assurance' to me; more a caveat.
Mebbes, but I'm not sure how much value there is in spending time on distinguishing between pols' caveats and assurances. How many times did Theresa assure us that she would not call a snap election?
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Swiss move closer on referendum on free movement with EU. Jan 2018
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
I've never been much of a fan of Farage but to be fair he has never disguised the fact he'd like to see the EU and Euro implode and let all the "States" of the EU go back to being independent trading nations again like there were in the days of the Common Market.
The nature of contemporary and future technology and industry makes that impossible. See JC's example of the Mini going back and forward to France to have the cam angle sensor (or whatever the fuck it was) fitted. Enterprises, industry and technology is now transnational and therefore so must be the economic and political framework in which they operate.
future technology? If you were starting with a clean sheet you'd have all the components of a car manufactured and fitted within the same square mile, rather than this polluting and timewasting crap of sending a car to Latvia to have the nearside indicator lens installed, and then on to Belgium for the wing mirrors. I assume that is how car mfring actually worked pre-war, and I would hope that we can work back towards it. The sensible long term solution is that stuff gets made where it is to be used, and hopefully a combination of automation and 3d printing, plus the levelling up of the developing world so that arbitraging the cost of labour ceases to be a thing, will bring that about. In which case world trade will be in commodities and not much else, and all this stuff about tariffs and duties and stuff will be of historical interest only.
To take cars as the operative example some major components are now so complicated and expensive to develop that not all manufacturers can design and make every part of the product. eg ZF 8HP transmission which is made in Germany and used in most Jaguars, all Bentleys and all Rolls-Royces. None of those companies, even with the heft of VAG or BMW or Tata behind them, are going to be able to design and build their own transmissions and still compete on price. This also happens with brakes, electronics, suspension components and even engines. Car manufacturers are now systems integrators at the centre of a continental logistics network. We're never going back to the days of car manufacturers making most parts of the finished product themselves.
Never is a long time considering many of those powertrain components won’t be necessary in one to two decades.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
There is a common view in Europe that many Brexit supporters are harking back to the glories of plucky little England standing alone in WW2. Great to see your posts refuting that stereotype.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Switzerland gives preference to local workers first for jobs.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations Remain would likely have narrowly won
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
There is a common view in Europe that many Brexit supporters are harking back to the glories of plucky little England standing alone in WW2. Great to see your posts refuting that stereotype.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Swiss move closer on referendum on free movement with EU. Jan 2018
Similar to Brexit, if the Swiss tear up the current compromise and force a showdown, it's more likely to lead to more integration than less.
The position here is that the Swiss narrowly voted against European FOM, the Government found it impossible to implement without scrapping their other EU agreements, so they're going back to the voters asking them to approve FOM (within reason). They probably will.
As usual I find Mr Meeks' thread header an interesting read - Denmark is in the wrong column though - it really belongs in
'Core Group hostile but realistic enough to accept we're tied to Germany forever following the occupation where our closer ties to the UK were destroyed, so we'll put up with it for as long as Germany is a member but only because we have to'
I suspect this group would actually be quite large (though I doubt any other EU country's economy was as closely tied to the UK's as Denmark's before 1940.)
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Swiss move closer on referendum on free movement with EU. Jan 2018
Similar to Brexit, if the Swiss tear up the current compromise and force a showdown, it's more likely to lead to more integration than less.
The position here is that the Swiss narrowly voted against European FOM, the Government found it impossible to implement without scrapping their other EU agreements, so they're going back to the voters asking them to approve FOM (within reason). They probably will.
The article is about an insurgent bid from the SVP to force a comprehensive renegotiation. A kind of mandate referendum.
The SVP’s latest initiative would, if accepted, give the Swiss government 12 months to negotiate with the EU on the abolition of the free movement of people — otherwise it would be cancelled unilaterally.
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Switzerland gives preference to local workers first for jobs.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations Remain would likely have narrowly won
Do you ever tire of posting exactly the same sentence about transition controls time and time again? And presumably I don't need to remind you that Blair's policy of no transition controls was enthusiastically supported by Michael Howard's Conservatives?
More than anything else, Brexit was caused by the unbridgeable contradictions of 30 years of the UK trying to be half in and half out of the EU.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
No given the SNP lost almost half its MPs at Westminster after proposing it and Westminster would block it but a Unionist majority at Holyrood would just be the final nail in its coffin!
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
There is a common view in Europe that many Brexit supporters are harking back to the glories of plucky little England standing alone in WW2. Great to see your posts refuting that stereotype.
1940 "Standing Alone" with a worldwide empire drawing on a quarter of thecworlds population and land area, including the vast resources of Canada, Africa, India and Australasia as well as the Lend Lease support from the USA.
2020 "Standing Alone" with 48% of the population opposed to "Standing Alone"
Wanting the EU to collapse is a logical Leaver position. Unless.and until it does so the EU is the only show in town in Europe and the UK is not part of it.
Indeed, apart from Belarus, and Putinland, we will be the only European country not in EU, EEA or in application to join. Self imposed isolation.
Switzerland and San Marino and Andorra and Monaco are not in the EU or EEA either
Though Switzerland is in Shengen and allows FoM. I think the other euro-tiddlers are in the Customs Union.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
Switzerland gives preference to local workers first for jobs.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations Remain would likely have narrowly won
Do you ever tire of posting exactly the same sentence about transition controls time and time again? And presumably I don't need to remind you that Blair's policy of no transition controls was enthusiastically supported by Michael Howard's Conservatives?
More than anything else, Brexit was caused by the unbridgeable contradictions of 30 years of the UK trying to be half in and half out of the EU.
Michael Howard's Conservatives voted to allow Eastern European nations to join the EU, it was Blair who had the power to impose transition controls on free movement from them and refused to do so. Given in my view that was the key reason Leave got over the 50% mark as long as we have everlasting Brexit discussions I will keep repeating that point.
Plenty of nations are still in the EU but outside the Euro e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary etc and Ireland like us is outside Schengen
I've never been much of a fan of Farage but to be fair he has never disguised the fact he'd like to see the EU and Euro implode and let all the "States" of the EU go back to being independent trading nations again like there were in the days of the Common Market.
The nature of contemporary and future technology and industry makes that impossible. See JC's example of the Mini going back and forward to France to have the cam angle sensor (or whatever the fuck it was) fitted. Enterprises, industry and technology is now transnational and therefore so must be the economic and political framework in which they operate.
future technology? If you were starting with a clean sheet you'd have all the components of a car manufactured and fitted within the same square mile, rather than this polluting and timewasting crap of sending a car to Latvia to have the nearside indicator lens installed, and then on to Belgium for the wing mirrors. I assume that is how car mfring actually worked pre-war, and I would hope that we can work back towards it. The sensible long term solution is that stuff gets made where it is to be used, and hopefully a combination of automation and 3d printing, plus the levelling up of the developing world so that arbitraging the cost of labour ceases to be a thing, will bring that about. In which case world trade will be in commodities and not much else, and all this stuff about tariffs and duties and stuff will be of historical interest only.
Brexiters: rolling back the economic laws of comparative advantage as they go...
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
No given the SNP lost almost half its MPs at Westminster after proposing it and Westminster would block it but a Unionist majority at Holyrood would just be the final nail in its coffin!
The mobility of Yoon goalposts really is a wonder of nature.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
No given the SNP lost almost half its MPs at Westminster after proposing it and Westminster would block it but a Unionist majority at Holyrood would just be the final nail in its coffin!
The short term is of little relevance....neither you nor I have any idea how popular independence will be in 20, 30, 40 years' time. The strong support of the youngest 40% of the electorate suggests it's complacent to assume the final nails will go into its coffin.
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
There is a common view in Europe that many Brexit supporters are harking back to the glories of plucky little England standing alone in WW2. Great to see your posts refuting that stereotype.
1940 "Standing Alone" with a worldwide empire drawing on a quarter of thecworlds population and land area, including the vast resources of Canada, Africa, India and Australasia as well as the Lend Lease support from the USA.
2020 "Standing Alone" with 48% of the population opposed to "Standing Alone"
48% growing every day as oldies die off, youngsters join the voter rolls, and EU immigrants obtain British citizenship
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
No given the SNP lost almost half its MPs at Westminster after proposing it and Westminster would block it but a Unionist majority at Holyrood would just be the final nail in its coffin!
The short term is of little relevance....neither you nor I have any idea how popular independence will be in 20, 30, 40 years' time. The strong support of the youngest 40% of the electorate suggests it's complacent to assume the final nails will go into its coffin.
In Quebec and Catalonia and Scotland the long term trend is all the same, a majority want more autonomy not outright independence
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
People have changed, values have changed, expectations, communication and weapons have changed.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
There is a common view in Europe that many Brexit supporters are harking back to the glories of plucky little England standing alone in WW2. Great to see your posts refuting that stereotype.
1940 "Standing Alone" with a worldwide empire drawing on a quarter of thecworlds population and land area, including the vast resources of Canada, Africa, India and Australasia as well as the Lend Lease support from the USA.
2020 "Standing Alone" with 48% of the population opposed to "Standing Alone"
48% growing every day as oldies die off, youngsters join the voter rolls, and EU immigrants obtain British citizenship
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
Snip
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
The fact that Germany has not had a big army and weapons to wage a war has stopped them starting a war in the way they did in 1914 and 1939.
What would the point of an expansionist war within the EU be?
For Germany to re-gain lost territory, pride, and nationalism.
Do you think Brexiteers who promote the idea of Irexit have the same motivation, and do you think there is a risk they could start a war in Europe?
Ireland and Britain did not start the first and second world wars. Germany did.
1940 "Standing Alone" with a worldwide empire drawing on a quarter of thecworlds population and land area, including the vast resources of Canada, Africa, India and Australasia as well as the Lend Lease support from the USA.
2020 "Standing Alone" with 48% of the population opposed to "Standing Alone"
The Empire was much less of an asset than is often thought. It may have included a quarter of the world’s people, but many of them were exceptionally poor, and it would not have been feasible to mobilise them the way the USSR did their entire population. We couldn’t even do it in Northern Ireland!
Those vast resources also weren’t much good without the machine tools, calculating machines, lenses and other unglamorous but vital components the U.K. lacked, and received through Lend Lease. Without that, we would have gone broke in late 1940/early 1941.
The fall of Singapore showed that the U.K. was hopefully overextended. We gambled that we would only face one major opponent at a time, but failed to make alliances to ensure that was the case.
I've never been much of a fan of Farage but to be fair he has never disguised the fact he'd like to see the EU and Euro implode and let all the "States" of the EU go back to being independent trading nations again like there were in the days of the Common Market.
The nature of contemporary and future technology and industry makes that impossible. See JC's example of the Mini going back and forward to France to have the cam angle sensor (or whatever the fuck it was) fitted. Enterprises, industry and technology is now transnational and therefore so must be the economic and political framework in which they operate.
future technology? If you were starting with a clean sheet you'd have all the components of a car manufactured and fitted within the same square mile, rather than this polluting and timewasting crap of sending a car to Latvia to have the nearside indicator lens installed, and then on to Belgium for the wing mirrors. I assume that is how car mfring actually worked pre-war, and I would hope that we can work back towards it. The sensible long term solution is that stuff gets made where it is to be used, and hopefully a combination of automation and 3d printing, plus the levelling up of the developing world so that arbitraging the cost of labour ceases to be a thing, will bring that about. In which case world trade will be in commodities and not much else, and all this stuff about tariffs and duties and stuff will be of historical interest only.
The economics of car manufacture is that profit comes with scale, as with any capital intensive business. In general you want fewer designs and fewer factories selling in larger quantities. Where Brexit comes in is that the UK market isn't big enough to support its own profitable car manufacturing business. It needs to be part of a bigger manufacturing system. Any barriers to that participation will see manufacturing located away from the UK.
Firstly, it's by AEP, the doom-monger's doom-monger.
Secondly, as Alastair points out, the EU is pretty much immune to sturm und drang within individual countries. Brexit is, as we can all see, extremely challenging in execution. A eurozone member, even one with Italy's economic clout, would find it even more difficult.
Thirdly, from our purely selfish national interests, we would prefer the EU to prosper; some one has to buy (say) our genuine Cornish Pasties.
There are some tricky waters for them to navigate; the proposed linking of economic aid to support for EU migrant policies is not sitting well with the Visegrad group, and Austria is likely to align with them on this issue.
Based on the Commission's own reports, completing EMU and drawing other countries within the Eurozone is also likely to cause problems, even within the core group - Germany is singularly reluctant to shoulder its obligations.
When I was on holiday in Italy last year there was real evidence of anti EU feeling even to the extent the euro flag on the beaches around Genoa was replaced by the Union Jack. The receptionist at our hotel hated the EU and blamed it for all it's woes.
I have no doubt that the new Italian government will be a thorn in the side of the EU with it's vow to disregard hundreds of EU regulations and question it's overall contributions.
Time will tell but they are not going to be bowing at the Court of Monsieur Juncker
They were probably holding the annual Ramsbottom Black Pudding making competion in Portofino.
And they have the gall to complain of 'anti-Russian hysteria'...
Looking very much like an (attempted, hopefully) assassination on British soil yet again. We need to quickly expel every current Russian “diplomat” in London and freeze a bunch of bank accounts.
Still laughing at Mr Meeks suggesting nasty posts on pb.com about Drunker and Barnier will impact the negotiations.
Junker and Barnier are hired to act in the interests of the EU27. Making nasty remarks about them won't make a difference to negotiations. Wilful denial of reality will however.
Still laughing at Mr Meeks suggesting nasty posts on pb.com about Drunker and Barnier will impact the negotiations.
Junker and Barnier are hired to act in the interests of the EU27. Making nasty remarks about them won't make a difference to negotiations. Wilful denial of reality will however.
Wrong. They are there to represent the interests of the EU.
Let’s hope so, the current boundaries are based on 2005 and so will be 17 years old by the next scheduled election.
Finally, so proper psephology we can all get our hands dirty with rather than squabbling over Brexit. Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now. It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).
Comments
As for 'negative', that's irrelevant. We should aim to be realistic, whether 'positive' or 'negative'.
They assert the UK joining the EU made no economic difference in terms of GDP per capita. The UK underperformed the EU before joining and matched the EU afterwards. The report claims the previous underperformance wasn't because the UK was outside the EU as the UK growth rate remained more or less the same after joining as before, over the long term. It vaguely refers to the US as a counterfactual but fails to mention that the UK also underperformed the US before joining the EU and has broadly performed the same since.
It has misread the Short term Treasury projections as out-turns, rather than costs of Brexit relative to the baseline. The Treasury report was clear on what it was measuring.
It claims, "The Treasury makes no allowance for changes in migration as a
consequence of Brexit. It thus assumes that any change in GDP is
mirrored by a change in per capita GDP." That assertion in turn implies population size has no effect on overall GDP. In fact studies show that each immigrant increases GDP almost exactly in proportion.
These look pretty big fails to me. There are plenty more.
You seem to think the EU should fail soon because it will fail eventually. In which case, virtually any governmental structure should be brought down now, as they will all probably fail eventually, especially if you use 'centuries' as your baseline.
http://www.internationalmensday.com/
Mr. Ace, there is. I think it's in November. I also think such days are pointless.
Yet it can be argued that the least damage will be done if it doesn't fail, and therefore surely that's the outcome we should want if we take avoiding damage *to them* as being a good thing?
In 2008 it had a debt to GDP ratio of 109%. By 2013 it was 177% and it's now 194% despite the fact the country is running a primary surplus. If Greece was a business it would have gone into administration long ago.
As for Italy, yes, the Lira wasn't always much loved, but it was good for exports
https://twitter.com/HandelsblattGE/status/971705491834507264
Leaving the EU is likely, from a Scottish independence (unionist) perspective, win-win.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Steak+and+Blowjob+Day&=true
I would like to see the collapse of the EU in its current form because I think that would be in the best interests of the people and nations of Europe. In its place we can establish a free trade area - we could call it something like "The Common Market".
We should be 28* sovereign nation states. Cooperating, collaborating, trading. Our people rubbing along fine, holidaying in each others countries and also living and working there, subject to national rules and policies.
*This number could increase, subject to the will of the people of Scotland, Catalonia, etc. Other nations not in the EU would also be part of the mix.
Perhaps TUD can provide an SNP perpective, if he's around...
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
All of those play a significant role in maintaining peace. Structures such as NATO and EU are far from the only reasons peace has endured. They have helped but peace could endure without them. Pity the UN is so inept and useless, I suspect that has had little impact on peace.
Edit to add
Communication is probably as important as any other factor, be it freedom of speech within a nation, a free press, internet etc.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
Of course the second independence referendum in Quebec effectively killed off independence after devomax was effectively given to the Quebec Parliament which managed to secure a narrow 51% to 49% anti independence majority
That's the tragedy of arguing about the EU, and our relationship with it, ad infinitum. The only bit of it that matters in even the medium term is the time and energy being wasted on it. Glaring social, economic, and geopolitical problems are being ignored.
Does this surge in nationalism
a) increase the chance of Germany starting a war in Europe
b) there is no b.
I shan't rise to the bait. The EU is not foreign.
Instead of Germant rearming now they should achieve their 2% defence spending target by paying for British forces to keep the peace.
We would be in the position of Belarus or Russia. Even Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey would be closer to the European mainstream.
I'm beginning to think that Unionist tactical voting has maxed out, the immovable object of Labourites who would never vote Con in a month of Sundays meeting the irresistible force of Cons who wouldn't touch Lab with a barge pole. I can see both parties bumping along on the 25-30% mark for a while. Of course the Unionist parties (mirroring the UK picture) have their own Brexit problems, SCons with a Remain leader in charge of a largely Brexity party & voters, SLab a Leave leader in charge of a Remain party and the SLDs desperately in search of relevance.
See https://www.ft.com/content/154b400e-fae0-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations Remain would likely have narrowly won
'Core Group hostile but realistic enough to accept we're tied to Germany forever following the occupation where our closer ties to the UK were destroyed, so we'll put up with it for as long as Germany is a member but only because we have to'
I suspect this group would actually be quite large (though I doubt any other EU country's economy was as closely tied to the UK's as Denmark's before 1940.)
The SVP’s latest initiative would, if accepted, give the Swiss government 12 months to negotiate with the EU on the abolition of the free movement of people — otherwise it would be cancelled unilaterally.
More than anything else, Brexit was caused by the unbridgeable contradictions of 30 years of the UK trying to be half in and half out of the EU.
2020 "Standing Alone" with 48% of the population opposed to "Standing Alone"
Plenty of nations are still in the EU but outside the Euro e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary etc and Ireland like us is outside Schengen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43330498
And they have the gall to complain of 'anti-Russian hysteria'...
Those vast resources also weren’t much good without the machine tools, calculating machines, lenses and other unglamorous but vital components the U.K. lacked, and received through Lend Lease. Without that, we would have gone broke in late 1940/early 1941.
The fall of Singapore showed that the U.K. was hopefully overextended. We gambled that we would only face one major opponent at a time, but failed to make alliances to ensure that was the case.
Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now.
It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).