moonraker

Or akin to the Premier League (the most successful league by a range of measures) who negotiate collectively. Or would you prefer the big 4/5 clubs ignore the rest of the clubs and just look after themselves? It is gnerally understood there is greater strength in numbers even when some of that number are individually obvioulsy not as strong as others.

I apologise, I was being somewhat reactionary. In my defence, I am somewhat frustrated with the inability of many of those who post simplistic statements about complex issues and then try to defend themselves with hackneyed assertions about what has or is actually happening. As I have repeatedly stated I recognise the failings of the EU but firmly believe that it is our best option. It is those who do not debate in a grown up manner, as you do, that irritates and leads to what you reasonably call patronising responses.

At last something I can agree with, just I do not belive leaving the imperfect EU is the best way to achieve that in our Globalised world.

And the problem with that is? It was not pedantic, just pointing out that your inference about commitees not working is wrong. The whole problem with the serial moaners on here is that they are incapable of thinking beyond their narrow self interest, the majority of their comments are just reactionary.

The UK may now want to set a new Tariff but the fact remains the UK Government not the EU has failed to react to the dumping of Chinese steel in the best interest of the UK steel industry. Putting aside the details of the Steel Industry this is a prime example of where our own Government had sufficient sovereignty to do something and abjectly failed to act. Embedded in Tory ideology is the principle that Government should not involve itself in any way with direct support to an individual industry, they struggle to see past this. Your comment about setting tariffs by committee is naïve at best, all Government is by committee, while the actual label may change Cabinet, Council, Parliament are all in effect other terms for committees. You use the term committee because in the popular perception it has negative connotations. If democracy is nothing else it is Government by committee.

The U.K. Stopped the EU imposing high tariffs on th chinese steel.

Just re-read and stand by my interpretation of your comments, your lack of clarity leads me to the conclusions I stated.

I did not say you did I said it is what you intimated.

You seem to be protesting about the failure of the Muslim community to respond to the terrorist problems in a manner that is open and supported by significant numbers. You also intimate that the lack of such a reaction is tantamount to condoning the Islamist extremists. Did you also take this view of the NI communities who failed to respond in the self same way as you demand? In such communities the fear of reprisals from the tiny minority of nutters is real, we saw real evidence of this in Glasgow last week, and the numerous kneecap pings and summary executions in Ni during the troubles was precisely designed to surprises any backlash. Your constant singling out of the Muslim community does your argument no favours and only serves to portray you as a bigoted ill informed, intolerant individual.

I don't dismiss any of your concerns and I do not unquestionably back the EU but I do believe it is the best option for our future.

Tough nothing to do with EU that dastardly European Court of Human rights has rejected the appeal by th family of Jean Charles De Menzies. What were they thinking backing the U K government!

The Greatest Britain of all Time was also in favour, mind you he did die over 50 years ago. Winston Churchill, a former army officer, war reporter and British Prime Minister (1940-45 and 1951-55), was one of the first to call for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’. Following the Second World War, he was convinced that only a united Europe could guarantee peace. His aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and war-mongering once and for all.

Quoting some one who dies nearly 40 years ago, very relevent.

So not the same as nationalising then. Not to allow government subsidies makes sense not only within the EU but outside. The history of subsidised industries is pretty poor, most eventually fail as they become reliant on the subsidies and neglect running the business efficiently and effectively. If you want the most extreme examples of subsidised industries and failure look no further than the old USSR. The WTO also prohibits government subsidies where the subsidies are contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods. So even without the EU the government could not subsidise the steel industry to counter cheap imports.

You have missed my point I did not claim we caused them although in the case of Ireland and all the troubles we can hardly blame anyone outside these Islands. You claimed we worked perfectly fine before 1975, my examples were just to illustrate that ‘perfectly’ might be a slight distortion of reality. Conversely are you intimating that all of our recent and /or current troubles such as they are can be laid at the feet of the EU: Blair/Bush alliance, North Korean threats, Islamist terrorism, world financial failure? I would argue that if a strong organsiation like the EU had existed after WWI, WWII would almost certainly have been avoided.

Did we? 2 World Wars and one lost Empire!, 1920,s were pretty tuff, as was the period post the napolonic wars, the plague tears wernt to hot and as for the civil war, the endless scottish issues and Ireland, need I go on.

The timing of political statements is everything, Merkel is the consummate politician and the timing and context of this statement is crucial. With the rise of nationalist parties across Europe this vision is certainly becoming more blurred and I doubt she would say or indeed endorse the same thing today.

The timing of political statements is everything, Merkel is the consummate politician and the timing and context of this statement is crucial. With the rise of nationalist parties across Europe this vision is certainly becoming more blurred and I doubt she would say or indeed endorse the same thing today.

Deleted!

I’m not arguing, that the difficulty of leaving is the defining factor for staying. My point is Brexit have failed to address any direct questions about, short medium or long term outcomes. While they somewhat disingenuously brand the stay campaign as project fear, the Brexit campaign twin approach is ‘it will be better out, just trust us’ and ‘we can do better on our own than without a load of meddling eurocrats’ there is no real context and little imperial evidence to justify either claim. The additional short term (5 0- 10 years) pain is just another issue Brexit are burying their heads in the sand over.

The Gus O'Donnell intervention has posed some very difficult questions for Brexit. On the Today programme it was suggested by a contributor that the EU would be in no hurry to conclude exit negotiations especially when Germany and France have elections next year, and the EU itself wont want to be seen to be easy to leave, maybe unfair but realistic. Until we are completely uncoupled from the EU, 5 – 10 years seems fair we will be subject to extant, amended and new rules and regulations with no say in their framing. Any savings as a result of freedom from ‘EU Red Tape’ can not be realised for minimum of 5 years and indeed in terms of manufacturing trade we will have to comply in full with EU regs. I personally doubt their will be any worthwhile net gain on the UK PLC bottom line purely as result of leaving the EU. I sort of get those who are ideologically opposed to the EU, I also understand those whose frustrations leads them to question the EU. What I struggle with is the inability of those who want to leave but time and time again fail to address the genuine concerns of leaving, raised by raft of informed and knowledgeable people and organisations. The stock answers, in no particular order are: • Its scaremongering • Its government propaganda • They are on the gravy train • That’s not what, some bloke from somewhere possibly important says! • I/we don’t agree • Depending on the specific issue, we can be like ‘Norway, Switzerland, Canada’ (note never like all of them at the same time!) • Wait till Turkey joins • Were all doomed! None of which provides answers to the key questions: ‘How will the UK mitigate the risks of leaving the EU in respect of this forecast in the short medium and long term’ ‘Why is the forecast wrong’ ‘What would you we do instead of what we do now’ and ‘How will things be different outside the EU’.

You are right it was not my point, neither did you get it, I was responding to a link to Brexit supporting analysis report from a little known South African company, and questioning its overall relevance in the face of a far greater number such reports from more respected or at least recognised company's that conclude the exact opposite.

Is that net of gross?

I am looking forward to it, will it be taxed?

So now you want us to accept the conclusions of an obscure South African financial wealth management company who specialise in African markets over much more established and respected ones. Well done the express researchers.