I think Rachel Cunliffe has this wrong. It has been reported, prior to today and again on this morning’s news programs, that when Cruz and Trump met with Preibus, Cruz stated that he would not be supporting Trump. Trump agreed to let Cruz speak at the convention anyway. Cruz’s people let Trump’s folks know as early as Monday this week that he would not come out supporting Trump. Trump agreed to let Cruz go on.
During the primaries, Trump called Cruz a liar, insulted Cruz’s wife, and accused his father of anti-American activities years ago. Cruz couldn’t let that pass, even as a realpolitik matter.
Trump and his people may not have liked it, maybe thought that Cruz could have soft peddled the language better, but they weren’t surprised or taken aback. And Trump has not been hurt by this, anymore than the damage he causes himself by some of the things he says. From what I’ve read about Trump, I don’t believe this was an oversight — I think there is probably a strategic purpose behind Trump agreeing to letting Cruz speak at the convention.
Cruz very likely stabbed himself, if not cut his own throat. The people in the convention saw it, and booed him off the stage, even before he completed his remarks. We’ll know for certain if he tries for the White House in the future.
Politicians are egoists by nature — it is what propels them to seek this sort of attention. There are several highly recognized Republicans that will not be seen supporting Trump, not just Cruz. By the way, I am not a Trump supporter — I was first hoping that Fiorina, and then Cruz, would get the nod. I don’t “sit out” elections. Everyone gets a vote and this time around a record number of Republicans said it would be Trump’s turn.
Clinton tweeted afterwards “Vote Your Conscience.” As if — I may not be crazy about Trump, but I will not vote for a liar and scofflaw, and that rules out Clinton. This election has a lot more to do with our country’s health than the silly things that are said during these interminable campaigns. There were originally 17 Republican candidates, almost all of which are more capable for this post than Clinton ever could be.
Allan Denver, Colorado, USA
Single market lonely hearts club
We are looking into trade with the commonwealth and are looking for a partner to help us alleviate poverty through trade in the commonwealth, whilst at the same time providing an attractive income stream.
The idea of completing new trade agreements with the commonwealth must be a priority for the new PM, with 2.2 billion people in the commonwealth along with existing interactive groups it would be insane to neglect this opportunity.
Robert Langford , Beaumont le Roger, France
This article by Michael Burrage is the first time I have read anything that attempts to quantify the so – called benefits of the Single Market. The Remainers relied on only qualitative assessments that were subjective during the campaign.
It is a pity that Mr Burrage’s assessment was not published during the campaign. It would have informed voters that the benefits of the Single Market are nothing more than a myth.
Ariadaeus, Samutprakan, Thailand
I voted for Brexit on the basis that British people have always believed in being free and fighting for it. I am appalled that some of our citizens are showing racist tendencies and these are not the thinking majority and I apologise for their utterances. We want free trade, and freedom to move around Europe to work, play, live and integrate and vice versa. Our country is small but big in heart, but in some areas of the country we are simply overrun and cannot cope. That frightens people and makes them irrational. We are happy for any educated, professional person to work and live in the UK. We have plenty of our own lazy, non-working people.
Surely the EU bosses can accommodate some sort of selective system for immigration? Our benefit system is probably at the top of the scale and we are being punished for it.
Chris Symington , South West UK
John R Gillingham & Marian L Tupy in ‘Brexit can reform Europe and perhaps even save the EU‘ are correct that the majority of the “elites” see the Single Market as vital to the economic well-being of Europe and the UK. Unfortunately, this is because most of them have little understanding of either the true nature of the Single Market, or of the fundamental nature of the EU itself.
The Single Market is a free trade area inside the EU but a customs union that imposes protectionist tariffs – and quite substantial ones in some cases – on non-EU goods. If the EU was properly committed to free trade, than the UK would have no doubts or worries about accessing the Single Market once we leave – it would be obvious and easy for us to do so. But it is not. Not only does the EU erect barriers around Europe, it only lets you trade freely with the Single Market if you agree to a whole host of other regulations and controls, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with trade. The most obvious is free movement of people – a principle that is not even discussed in trade negotiations in any other area – but there are hundreds of others as well.
The same principle applies across a wide range of agreements. For example, the Open Skies in aviation requires countries to accept EU regulations on safety, the environment and working practices.
What this means is that the benefits always come with substantial costs. The EU itself admits this itself, albeit implicitly, when it dismisses the UK’s attempts to “cherry-pick” aspects of membership. That implies that there are both benefits and costs, and that you cannot have just the benefits. Quite why there are costs in the first place is, of course, never explained.
That leads to a more serious problem however: that the benefits grow only slowly (or not at all) but the costs grow rapidly. The EU is at its heart a bureaucracy, a machine for producing endless intervention and regulation. It has no ability to stop, let alone a desire to do so. It employs 10,000 people whose only purpose is to regulate, and to constantly seek out ways to intervene. This is bad enough, but it leads to corporatism, and the stifling of innovation and competition.
If the UK actually wanted to reform the EU, it would seek to abolish the Single Market altogether, and replace it with a true free trade area, open to anybody. It would delink trade from all the other areas that have slowly corrupted the Single Market.
That will never happen, because the EU’s raison d’etre is regulation, not economic development. It was designed from the outset to be a technocracy, but that is simply a euphemism for bureaucracy. It uses the Single Market and other “liberalisations” to impose its bureaucracy, not as good things in and of themselves but as Trojan Horses. Unlike the original however, they have the ability to endlessly create new Greek soldiers once you have let them through the gates.
The EU is not a fourth Reich, nor is it an evil empire. It is not even really a Leftist project. It is an Imperium of Busybodies.
Tim Hammond , London, UK | @Tim Hammond
In response to Mr Legrain: you have lost. You show profound disrespect to the 17.4 million UK voters who supported Leave and for the democratic process. Your hysteria helps no one. As for your suggestion of entryism by UKIP into the Conservative party, that is palpable nonsense a) because the UKIP minded drifted off years ago b) you have to have been a member for at least three months to vote for the new leader.
David Soskin, London, UK | @davidsoskin
Encore, Miss May!
Come on Fiona, you don’t do any justice to your cause by this rant. All of the journalist’s comments you refer to about Theresa’s PMQs performance arose from one, sole, final, segment of her response to the witless Mr Corbyn – when, as you full well know, she lent forward with her elbow on the dispatch box, in a totally untypical gesture (for her) – and assumed a perfect Thatcherite admonishing tone of voice. It was, methinks, very deliberately considered, and very deliberately performed. Bravo Theresa!
Michael Patterson , Dordogne, France
I am a 30-year-long, UK resident of Denmark; I still receive a small State Pension from my contributions while working in UK.
I pay taxes on my Danish income but have been deprived of my Parliamentary vote, both here in Denmark (because I am not Danish) and by the UK, of which I am a proud and and still contributing (through trade) citizen. I am outraged by this completely arbitrary deprivation which the last Conservative campaign manifesto promised to reverse.
This is another broken promise, made more bitter by our also being deprived of the right to vote in the referendum.
In fact, because the EU is both so dysfunctional and stubbornly “unreformable”, if I had had that vote and despite the huge personal inconvenience that “leave” vote would cause to my personal circumstances, I would have voted to leave.
Never, in my wildest nightmares, could I have dreamed that you would use hard-working, legal UK residents, as pawns in your grab for power. I am disgusted with you!
Hugh Sharman , Hals, Northern Jutland, Denmark
Africa is growing:
In 1999 58% of 650 million people lived on $1.90 a day or less – 377 million people.
In 2011 44% of 1000 millon people lioved on $1.90 or less – 440 million people.
Long way to go.
Nick Russell , Hereford, England