holystove

This comment in the Daily Mail : Don't know if USM does in fact refer to Moshiri but maybe there is no second billionaire connection..

It's difficult for me to understand how you could say that the trade deals the EU negotiates are only to the benefit of France and Germany. Even if those two countries always voted together in the Council, they still wouldn't get a majority without a lot of other member states supporting them. As I said in a previous post, the UK is so big, that they can basically block or enforce anything they want in the EU (which incidentally is why I was pro-Brexit on the 23rd of June 2016 - I no longer am right now). Also, the trade deals are negotiated by the Commission which isn't a French or German institution (the last time someone French or German headed it was 20 years ago) - only at the end do the member states get a say. If we look at reality, you can see that for example the EU-South Korea deal of 2011 has increased UK-South Korea trade by a whopping 57%. Germany's trade increased by 50%. The Canada-EU deal was projected to increase UK-Canada trade by 29%. It is a fact that through the EU the UK has access to a lot more markets (the EU has access to 50 markets .. countries like Canada and Australia only 15), and gets better trade deals (being the biggest economic bloc in the world gives you a lot of bargaining power; the Australia-South Korea trade deal eliminates tariffs 4 times slower than the EU was able to do in their South Korea deal; China just did a deal with Switzerland where China gets immediate access to the Swiss market but the Swiss have to wait 15 years for access to the Chinese Market; ...) It's OK to want to go at it alone, but it's a near certainty that the UK will do worse than as a part of the EU. It's why I said that Davis and Fox and co shouldn't make the British public believe that on this issue, leaving the EU was beneficial.

About to sign an improved contract with Napoli.. As expected.

Must be so .. His defense of Putin in light of all of the allegations (/ evidence) strongly implies he owes something Russian a lot of money. It's the same in Europe. Look at Le Pen in France; she has flat out said that if Russia gives her money to fund her campaign, she will, as French president, recognize the annexation of the Crimea (!).

One of the things that I have the most difficulty understanding is the fact that David Davis, Liam Fox and others think that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals from outside the EU versus inside the EU. The way I understand it: right now the UK is one of the biggest members of the biggest economic bloc in the world. Everyone wants to do trade deals with the EU and with the UK a prominent voice at the table, they're going to get deals that are directly beneficial to the UK economy. By leaving, they are a much much smaller economy so they don't have the same appeal to third parties or the same bargaining power. Secondly, the EU already has a lot of trade deals with the countries that Davis and Fox point to as future trading partners. The UK on itself wouldn't have gotten as good a deal as the EU so they can't improve on those deals. Quite to contrary, if those countries say that they want a new deal with the UK because the EU deal was based on access to a bloc of 28 countries (which is no longer the case), the UK will get a worse deal than it has now. This article by a Canadian professor finally clears some points up. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/david-davis-muddled-understanding-of-trade-policy/ One benefit for the UK might be that David Davis has said the EU is clumsy at negotiating those deals and that the UK would be more efficient at it. I find that hard to believe because the EU-deals are negotiated (amongst others) by British experts, and as Ivan Rogers wrote in his letter to his staff, the EU Commission has a lot of experience negotiating those deals, whereas Whitehall doesn't. Also the article I posted states the EU is rarely the difficult partner in trading negotiations. I've been looking online for peer-reviewed articles that support the thesis that the UK will get better trade deals when negotiating on its own but can't find one; I'd be very interested if anyone has a link to one. I say peer-reviewed because every time I read something by 'Change Britain' that sounds interesting to a non-economist like me, it gets debunked the next day. To me it would make more sense if Davis and Fox just said that they're going to try to get the best trade deals they can, that they will probably be worse than what the UK would have gotten as a member of the EU, but that's just the price the UK is willing to pay for being able to control its own borders.

Only 12m ?? IMO he's worth at least 25. ... 10 goals in 15 games thus far for Napoli in the Serie A, often as a sub. He absolutely loves life in Italy (as does his wife), I doubt he'd want to play in England.

It's official.. 3,5 years, 70 million EUR. Says: "I'm aware it's a step back, but this way I can provide for my family for a very long time". .. I can respect that.

great strike with his -right- foot.. such power. strange he didn't celebrate the goals.. problems with the new contract negotiations?

Italian media reporting he will go to China this transfer window.. Price: 20m EUR for Zenit and 18m EUR/year for Witsel.

At least we're no longer comparing him to Troy Deeney. I was impressed with how he shrugged of the first defender but the way he made wasilewski seem non-existant, shows that in open space Rom is probably the best striker in the EPL.

If you go individual case by individual case you can never make a general statement. In general, people don't look for multiple news sources, etc.. so any political system is going to have to take that into account. In general, I do believe fake news and information-overload on either side of the political spectrum pose a big threat to an informed public debate. This to me is the biggest problem with the popular view of the EU in the UK. Most view the EU as "them", while in reality they should view it as "us". Right now with the UK part of the EU, the treaties and legislation are drafted by UK ministers/experts/civil servants. There's a lot of British people working for EU institutions. Basically the British civil servants and experts are part of everything that goes on in the EU. Because of the size of the UK it is very unlikely that the UK gets outvoted in any major decision taken by the EU (you only need about 3 allies of decent size). Of the some 2.500 EU-approved regulations, the UK only voted against 40... (I stole the 2.500 number from something I read on the guardian comments section, so I don't have an official source). Over the last decades, the UK has been a very influential member of the EU. If at some point in the future the UK is out of the EU and wishes to re-join, the UK will once again take its important seat at the table. The only hope is that it is perceived that way in the UK, rather than the German-Franco alliance the UK-media has made it seem. It's sad really to read that you fear the EU would be so vindictive .. presumably the UK would only re-apply if they see the EU as a positive story, something the UK wants to be part of.

I know, but I'm still holding out hope I wasn't completely wrong 7 years ago . Sadly, I'm counting on the Daily Mail to prove me right. :I surrender:

Rest assured, if at any point in the future the UK would decide to re-join the EU, the EU would let them in in a heartbeat. The re-integration of the 7th biggest economy would make the EU the biggest economy in the world again, 65m extra citizens would give the EU a bigger voice, would be a huge political win if the UK asked to re-join, .. I don't see any down side.

I actually think "technology available" is a big problem to make your idea work. You imply that you get an informed populace that make decisions either for the common good or in their own best intrest. 1. people are mis-informed through fake news which through new technology is delivered right on your doorstep 2. there is so much information out there that re-inforces your existing opinion that you won't be subjected to another point of view and just get more entrenched in an unnuanced opinion.. (most people only watch either Fox News or MSNBC; in an ideal world you'd watch both). Consequently I don't think people know what their own best intrest are (a lot of Trumpeteers would have been better of with Bernie-policy; UK regions which benefited most from EU voted out; ...) or can see what the common good is beyond the fear they have for "outsiders". I actually really like the idea of an Electoral College. People can't even be trusted when choosing their representative. There needs to be an extra check through an Electoral College to make sure they haven't chosen an idiot. (In practice this doesn't really seem to work, but the idea in itself is not bad). Way forward imo: 1. constitution with bill of rights 2. checks and balances on a strong executive branch 3. direct democracy for parliament - indirect democracy for executive positions 4. oversight by judicial branch (rule of law) (5. international oversight). On a side note: I assume you're an older man (you have out-of-house kids), and I must say I applaud your belief in the (intellectual) abilities your fellow man. It won't take many more years with the way things are going now to turn me into a hardened cynic.

this sums up 2016 perfectly ... "Brexit Secretary David Davies just took Theresa May to an EU Court and won." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-secretary-david-davis-just-9494588

http://www.euronews.com/2016/12/20/theresa-may-s-brexit-problem British politics as viewed by an outsider. Interesting passage which re-inforces the argument against referenda: So a referendum in 2020 might have a different result, one in 2030 might result in Leave again. Before long, the UK will be holding both exit-negotiations as accession talks at the same time.

It seems The Daily Mail investigative journalism has taken away some of the astonishment...

http://time.com/4606071/american-global-leadership-is-over/

Not nearly good enough for Everton imo. Dutch league is very poor these days, so no wonder he has the occasional good game there. Watch him when he plays for Holland against a decent international side, he couldn't break into the starting 11 of West Brom. - I actually do think Rom's first touch is much improved from when he first came to Everton (but I agree he doesn't make great runs).

I'd also be interested in the geographical diversity (I know there are some Scandinavians, the occasional dutch posters, some on and off again belgians, .. but I wonder about far east, etc.). There's a lot of money in becoming a global brand.

Soviet Russia = bad. Soviet Russia had a single market. Conclusion: single market = bad. They wore hats in Soviet Russia. So are hats bad? They drove cars, are cars bad? The UK on itself is also a single market, so is the US, so is basically every country.

There is a big difference between free trade and a single market. Ofcouse the EU is open to free trade, they just did a deal with Canada. The single market however offers much more, and therefor requires a fee if you want to join it and it brings with it certain elements that everyone within the single market has to accept, such as freedom of movement. This is different from a free trade agreement where there is obviously no fee or something similar. I don't think there is any question that there will eventually be a free trade deal between the EU and the UK if the UK chooses to be outside the single market.

being made an example of is much too strongly worded imo. the EU will however negotiate with only its interests at heart, future policy will be decided without any care for the negative effect it might have on the UK, etc... and rightly so. I do hope this get sorted quickly. People on the continent are also suffering the consequences of the uncertainty at the moment. Friend of mine has a software company and 20% of his turnover comes from the UK. His margins were low to begin with but now with the pound being worth less than usual, he's actually close to running a deficit. I'm sure there are many many more examples seeing how the region where I live is a major exporter to the UK.

So am I. 1984 FTW!

If you only make "outrageous" statements in public but then only a couple of years later do give a deal to the UK that's more beneficial to them than full membership, isn't that a very short term way of frightening other nations? What would be the point? I don't think frightening other countries is part of it.. what union would last if the only thing that is keeping it together is fear? when in the brexit debate they talk about frightening, I think it relates to frightening populists and their fan base. If you show that the EU does work and that it does have a positive impact, then you take away a lot of ammo from the demagogues. The best deal for the UK would be to cherry-pick all the positives of EU membership, of couse other nations would be inclined to also want that. But the union wouldn't survive for long if everyone is just taking stuff out and noone is contributing. Therefor even outside the EU, if the UK wants the benefits of the EU it has to pay for access and allow free movement. I don't think they will budge on this, not even in the "behind-the-scenes" negotiations.