Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nadine says Dave should dump Nick for the party with zero M
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nadine says Dave should dump Nick for the party with zero MPs. Isn’t the reverse more likely?
Nadine says Dave should dump LDs &get into bed with Ukip.Only problem: LDs57 MPs, UKIP 0. goo.gl/IwfWg. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They're all looking at the polls, and counting down to 2015, would they want to vote against?
*Goes off to watch paint dry*
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/333380079625326593
Do we think Ed Miliband would let them have their election, or would he prefer to move directly into Downing Street?
"If it is Nick Clegg and the pro-European Liberal Democrats preventing us from having the referendum then it is time to dump the Liberal Democrats."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4924255/Tories-must-dump-Clegg-and-get-into-bed-with-UKIP.html
Anyway:
(a) He still doesn't actually say we'd leave the EEA, but repeats the example of Norway.
(b) It's a bit of an odd argument for UKIP to say it would be safe to leave the EU because we'd still be in the EEA. That is an admission that there is an advantage in being part of the EU/EEA bloc.
(c) Why should the new deal he wants to negotiate be any different to what the EEA or EU currently offers, or Cameron could get from within the EU? UKIP's argument seems to be that Cameron can't get any concessions from the EU from within it: why should negotiating as part of the EEA change that?
The fact is, whatever we do, we have to negotiate with our EU friends. That might include accepting the free movement of labour - I suspect that would be almost the last principle they would want to compromise on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Results
You are deliberately cherry-picking bits from the video. Farage explicitly describes the EEA as a holding position, and then goes on to say we would be able to get a deal that's better than Switzerland. Switzerland, as you are fully aware, is outside the EEA.
Talk about an "EEA/EU" bloc just shows your obfuscation of the issue. The EEA is markedly different from the EU. Yes, there is an advantage to having free trade with European countries, just as there is an advantage to having free trade with other countries. It's nothing to do with being a "bloc" or not.
As for your question about getting concessions from the EU within it, the whole point of the EU is ever closer union. Members of the EU going significantly in the opposite direction would weaken that ideological commitment. If, however, we were outside the EU, then they would be far more comfortable giving us a looser trade arrangement, as they have with Switzerland, Mexico, South Korea etc.
1) It would have been hard to pass a tight budget, which may have freaked out the markets.
2) It would have been hard to pass electoral reform as the LibDem quid pro quo, and a few grumpy Labour MPs popped up and said they wouldn't deliver.
3) Likely by-election losses would make the above worse.
These wouldn't be so bad now:
1) They wouldn't need to tighten up on the current budgets.
2) The LibDems probably wouldn't expect electoral reform in the last two years.
3) There's not much time left for government MPs to fall under buses.
So I think they'd have the votes to do it - the problem would be how the voters would react.
Other than that there is very little to say on the subject except perhaps one should consider which paper Madnads said this in and the demographic breaks in the latest Yougov Poll.
She actually said this in the Sun and in the Sunday Yougov Poll the Libdems pick up 7% of the C2DE vote whereas UKIP picked up 21%. Libdems can cling to their parliamentary presence and their twitters sneers but the polling suggest its not quite the dumb move that they might like to make it seem like.
After all the Libdem figures amongst C2DEs is woeful. So much for their fairness agenda! That's really working!
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2chabiz0nj/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-100513.pdf
where he praises the relationship Norway has with the EU. He then talks about negotiating with the EU. (Quite why this two-stage process is required is unclear - why not negotiate the new deal from within the EU, when clearly we'd have more clout? You know, like Cameron is suggesting?)
He praises the relationship with Norway as BETTER than EU membership, before going on to say it still has disadvantages and we could get a deal that was better than Switzerland's.
Why would we not negotiate this new deal from within the EU? Ummm... because the EEA arrangement is better and cheaper, as he said. Negotiating a new trade deal would take time, and you would immediately save money on fees, could get control over our agriculture and fisheries sector immediately, and start negotiating our own trade deals elsewhere.
Now it's your turn: where is the Tories description of what the new type of EU membership would look like? Senior members of government have said that the current arrangement is worse than leaving, but that the best option is a reformed Europe. So what is this reformed Europe? What should we keep and what should we leave? Any description anywhere?
Maybe in the spirit of cooperation since we have provided links for him, he can direct us to Cameron's finalised policy on renegotiation with the EU including all the policies he intends to see reclaimed and what he will do when the EU says no?
No? Thought not.
Labour might like an election, they could win their Lab/LD marginals. They might like their chances against a Boris-Conservative Party.
We would have to do no negotiation with the EU (though personally I think it is always better to do so) because all the rules regarding both EU and EEA membership are clearly set out in the relevant treaties.
We simply stop abiding by the EU set of treaty obligations and start abiding by the much less onerous EEA obligations. The point at which negotiation does have to begin is if and when we choose to leave the EEA. That is still my preferred option but until then there would be absolutely no point in negotiation because you would in effect be trying to rewrite either the EU or EEA treaties. This is the lesson that clearly both you and Cameron have not yet learnt.
On your last point, I think it is wrong because we currently have (a few) veto rights as signatories of the Lisbon Treaty. For example, we can prevent the EU prioritising the Eurozone over non-Eurozone countries in trading policy. If we leave the EU and then start negotiating, we'd be supplicants with zero say and no veto powers whatsoever. We'd also have gratuitously thrown away a bargaining chip - the fear the nomenklatura has that we might leave. This makes no sense. (BTW I agree with the point you're about to make that Cameron should have left the possibility of our leaving the EU more open as a bargaining chip).
Basically my gripe with UKIP is that they deny that negotiation would be required whatever we do, unless we just do a Miliband and roll over completely, and that those negotiations would inevitably mean we continue to cede sovereignty. It is simply not the case that we can have full access to the Single Market without offering concessions in return. By citing Norway, or Switzerland, they are offering two possible models for what those concessions might be, neither of which frankly looks very attractive, and one of which is completely incompatible with UKIP's main campaigning point on immigration.
Perhaps he already has his next income stream lined up.
If that is all UKIP are arguing, then they are more dishonest than I thought. But I thought we'd established, or at least you have said, that UKIP would leave the EEA.
Is this the case or not?
What negotiation is necessary as far as our continuing EEA membership is concerned?
He didn't cite Norway! David Cameron cited Norway, saying it was worse, and Farage simply responded to this, pointing out that Norway was in a much better position. He then went on to say that, even though this was an improved position, we could do better still.
There's no way in hell that we will get benefits inside the EU of what we could get even in the mid-way improvement of the EEA. They will never allow us an opt out of the CAP and will never allow us to sign our own trade deals. You yourself have admitted this. As for what we need to negotiate from the outside, it's just free trade. This won't be very difficult to get, as countries from Mexico to South Korea have done it, and they're not the EU's largest trading partner.
You also claim that UKIP don't accept the need for further negotiation. I quote:
"We should use our membership of the EEA as a holding position... from which we can negotiate as good a deal [as Switzerland]."
He actually uses the specific term "negotiate". Will you at least drop this one silly argument?
"As local Tory MP Mark Simmonds pointed out earlier this year, there are about 1,300 unemployed people in Boston: "If we got rid of 10,000 migrants, who would do the work?""
Before the Eastern European surge, the jobs were done.
Mark Simmonds isn't Mr Popular at the moment in Boston but Tory MPs tend to farmers' mates anyway .
A large number of the jobs are casual, it's the nature of farming - far busier in summer than in winter.
The issue, as has been said before, is the fact that the immigrants will accept lower wages and worse conditions. A win-win for the employers. Sound financial sense, and interesting that tim is a Tory sometimes, especially as these immigrants are white and predominantly Catholic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzsEZoPuWGM
EdM's mind-numbing gibberish , on full display yesterday , has the opposite effect.
1) UKIP, Socrates and Richard Tyndall all seem utterly confused as to what they are saying about the EEA. Yes, we could stay in it without any further negotiation, but if we do we wouldn't have work permits for EU citizens and we would have 'government by fax'. If that is what UKIP are advocating, they should say so, and admit that the stuff about work permits is a load of hooey. Personally I think this is the worst of all worlds, but others might disagree. Either way, it must be off the table as an option because otherwise UKIP's stuff about immigration would make no sense. So why mention it? It must be ruled out except as a purely temporary step.
2) If it is not what they are advocating, then we need to negotiate some other deal, and the supposed advantages of being in the EEA (but not the EU) are completely irrelevant: we wouldn't be in it. So we'd need to negotiate, from scratch and with no automatic reference to any existing treaties, a new deal with our EU friends. What that deal might be is of course unknowable -in that respect UKIP's position is similar to Cameron's - but what is quite certain is that we would certainly cede sovereignty as part of it, even if this is only in terms of (for example) accepting EU product standards; I can't imagine we'd have our own vehicle type testing, for example.
Of course this is possible - as I've said, the balance is shifting towards leaving, because of the EU's attacks on the City. Others like Lord Lawson and Michael Gove seem to agree on this. But it's a trade-off, and not one which would leave us free to do anything we want.
But you had specifically said that leaving the EU and becoming a member of the EEA would require negotiations which is absolutely untrue. Do you now accept that you were not correct on that point?
As far as immigration for workers is concerned I have not been the one arguing about that. I had specifically said the benefit of leaving the EU and being in the EEA would be that we would have control over non workers who could be prevented from coming to Britain. The same would apply to those who had ended their employment in the UK and would therefore have to leave. This is exactly the same as someone working in Norway today from the EU or EEA. So to claim we would have no additional control over immigration compared to now is also an outright lie.
Unfortunately you are continuing to display a wilful ignorance which allows you to misrepresent both UKIP's position and that of Socrates and myself.
On one of your specific points - yes in the EEA we would have work permits. Norway does today although they do not have to be renewed as long as you stay in employment. If you lose employment you have to leave the country. So on that point you are 100% wrong.
When are you going to stop misrepresenting everyone elses position on this and start trying to explain the idiocy of Cameron's position with his toothless promise of renegotiation in which he won't even tell us what is going to be negotiated nor what we will do when the rest of teh Eu says no thanks.
We have answered all your points. Your continued displacement activity to avoid confronting the limits of your own parties position on the EU is very sad to behold.
COYS.
Tories maj nailed on, Yvette next LotO.
TTFN.
By Gove, the education secretary is becoming a classy media performer. His interview on the Marr programme on Sunday produced several news stories tailor-made to liven up the life of news editor on a Sunday. Gove used to be a news editor himself.
First, there was a wonderful assault on the Lib Dems, when he declared that Nick Clegg ratting on his promises inside the coalition was really all just part of a civil war within what is left of the third party. He blamed Lib Dems loyal to Vince Cable, the Twickenham sage and business secretary. Incidentally, if Labour really is prepared to consider a coalition with the perfidious Clegg rather than a minority government the party leadership needs its collective head examining.
But what will get much more attention is Gove's declaration that he would be prepared to vote to get out of the EU. He told the BBC's James Landale: "Life outside would be perfectly tolerable, we could contemplate it, there would be certain advantages."
Put out the Union flags, fire up Land of Hope and Glory on the gramophone and cue intense Eurosceptic excitement. Gove, one of the Tory tribe's favourite ministers, is confirming that he favours the UK departing the EU.
But hold on. His position is more subtle than that. "I am not happy with our position in the European Union but my preference is for a change in Britain's relationship with the European Union."
So he's for getting out, perhaps, but he prefers a change of of relationship that might not necessarily involve a full exit. That means a renegotiation, which is what the Prime Minister is committed to.
"My own view is let the Prime Minister lay out our negotiating strategy, make sure he has a majority, which I am convinced he will secure at the next election, and let's have the referendum then."
Very clever indeed. In just a few paragraphs Gove squares the circle. He cheers the Tory rebels by legitimising a Brexit, backs a renegotiation and referendum and praises the hitherto hidden general election winning abilities of his friend the Prime Minister. This is a formula other members of the Cabinet might usefully borrow if they are asked to say something about Europe.
There was a time when crop picking was done by Britons. Indeed some friends of mine spent the summer picking fruit while they were at University. They came back tanned and fit as fleas from all that outdoir work, and seemed to have had a good time in the pubs slaking their thirst. Medical Students got shorter holidays, just three weeks. I was jealous of them. Good times!
Seasonal outdoor work wouldn't do modern students any harm, indeed it may teach them how hard others need to work in order to live.
Farage is fully aware that he doesn't 'do detail'. Give the man a break. How long should the transition period be, after the UK has given notice that we're quitting the EU? Why hasn't it all been thought through?
Two things:we're not at that stage, yet. And when we are, everything will be done by negotiation.The other EU govts are not our enemies, and hopefully never will be. The UK will always benefit from a trading relationship with Europe.
UKIP policy is that we want two-way trade trade with the EU, but we have no interest in political union. We thus occupy the same middle ground as the vast majority of people both in the Europe and throughout the world. About the only exceptions to that are some senior European politicians, and their acolytes. Sadly, they have quite dispropotionate influence.
Indeed - the SNP are in gov and haven't a clue what their *independence* vote actually means - and have been banging on about it for 40yrs.
Kippers are still dabbling in the shallow end of detail as a Party who is galvanising populist and popular support and really don't need to be dotting every i and t.
I'm not a Kipper and prefer a renegotiated relationship to BOO - but expecting them to be very specific is laughable when even the main Oppo Party in the UK - Labour - can't tell us what any of their policies are AT ALL!
The EEA position is either disingenuous or downright dishonest. Those who want to come out of the EU because of "free movement of labour", either does not know that that provision is also in the EEA or worse, they keep quiet about it.
The idea that we can renegotiate better terms because we hold all the trumps is frankly laughable. Who holds more cards, a market of 62m or 450m ? Why should the EU concede anything meaningful ? They have countries trying join it, not leaving. Even an independent Scotland wants to stay in. Norway is not in but effectively has to accept EU directives. So what's the point of staying out except we can treat the EU just like USA or China.
Then why should multi-nationals invest in the UK to establish a bridgehead into EU ? They are not coming here for a 62m market.
"EEA nationals who wish to stay longer than 90 days, need a residence permit. Applications should be lodged at the local Police Station in Norway.
In order to apply, the following documentation must be submitted:
Application form
Valid passport
Two new photographs (please click here for photo requirements)
Offer of Employment / Employment contract / Other means of subsistence"
So exactly as I stated. No job, no permit.
You really are getting desperate now Richard.
So, when are you going to start setting out what areas Cameron is going to be asking for renegotiation with the EU and what he will do when they say no? (with links to his actual policies please, not just what you think they might be). Or are you going to persist with these distraction efforts to cover the fact the Tories have no coherent policy on this?
The Tories by chasing an UKIP mirage, might relegate themselves to another 10 years in opposition. They talk about renegotiation but it takes two to negotiate. What will the EU negotiate with Britain ? The right of Brits to live in Spain and use the local health service ?
Pretty rubbish weekend, to be frank.
Cameron has managed to find a unique place in politics where he has a completely ineffectual and unworkable policy which annoys both sides of the argument equally because they can see how disingenuous it is. Either that or he is really, really, really dumb.
And yet between 60 and 70% of the UK public disagree with Labour policy on this.
That must give you a really warm feeling to be so utterly out of touch with public opinion.
"They are automatic entitlements which Norway cannot legally refuse. You just turn up, show evidence you have a job, "
If you have a job, the Norwegian government cannot say No. Is that what Farage means by a work permit ?
From 2005 Labour manifesto ;
"We will put [the EU constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
Nobody believes a word Labour says on anything.
Europe and the Euro is your graveyard ! Keep digging. We are supremely relaxed about Europe.
Is it possible to get the residence permit, then move to another job, or go on the dole without being deported?
Does it give the holder rights of access to the Norwegian welfare state, such as state housing?
I am genuinely curious, not least because my son is fond of Scandanvia and may want to work there
Is that not worth even a little bit of discussion?
The sneering, snobbish, dismissive attitude of the likes of you and surbition disgust me. And I'm not even a UKIP supporter, and most likely never will be.
For example, when Britain leaves the UK, why should an impoverished Spain look after "foreigners" ?
The problem with the Tories is that a huge proportion of its MPs seem as mad.
Get yourself a pair of these if you dont like whats happening Surbs!
http://www.daftgiftshop.co.uk/ekmps/shops/daftgifts/images/i-m-not-listening-headband-2110-p.jpg
BYE DAVE! Cameron is facing a leadership challenge as up to 70 Tory MPs prepare to sign a letter of no confidence http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/70-tories-say-david-cameron-1883340 …
From what I understand emergency care is possible with an EHIC card, and pensioners can get State care if registered with a card (but become liable to health tax by doing so), those expats below pension age find difficulty being covered. The Spanish system also does not provide domestic care such as the equivalent of district nurses. In practice Brit expats are better off with insurance. Spanish private sector care is generally very good going by the feedback that I get from patients. It may be that the British Expats are net contributors to the Spanish economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/7499053/Expat-guide-to-Spain-health-care.html
"Last night the MP, whose identity is being withheld by The Mail on Sunday, said: ‘It is important for legal reasons that I make absolutely no comment.’ The revelation that Mr Evans’s arrest was caused by one of his own party colleagues will add to the sense of shock that the incident has caused at Westminster. It is also likely to intensify behind-the-scenes debate over whether the Ribble Valley MP should continue to carry out his Commons duties while detectives investigate."
One of the world’s top gamblers won £7.8 million in a game of chance by ‘reading’ the backs of the cards, claim the owners of Britain’s oldest casino, who are refusing to pay out.
Phil Ivey, dubbed ‘the Tiger Woods of poker’, is understood to have exploited tiny flaws in the card design during a game of punto banco, a type of baccarat based purely on luck.
He insists he did nothing illegal, however, and is suing Mayfair club Crockfords in the High Court in what is expected to be the biggest legal battle in casino history.
The technique has echoes of Kaleidoscope, a 1966 film starring Warren Beatty as a playboy who breaks into a card manufacturer to mark the cards and then beat the bank at every European casino.
The Mail on Sunday, which revealed last October that Mr Ivey’s winnings had been withheld, understands the cards were flawed because of a mistake during the cutting process at an overseas manufacturing plant.
Crucially, it meant their geometric pattern was not symmetrical, though this would not have been noticeable to the untrained eye.
Cards should look exactly the same if turned 180 degrees. If they do not, it allows so-called advantage players to use a system known as ‘playing the turn’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323122/Phil-Ivey-Gambler-won-7-8m-reading-cards.html#ixzz2T64ZLj00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://news.yahoo.com/richard-branson-swaps-suit-skirt-honor-bet-091130555.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323220/Shock-84-schools-NO-white-British-pupils--double-years-ago.html
I think its v patronising and racist and Im not one for PC Traffic Warden behaviour
•Hillary Clinton (D) 37.1%
•Chris Christie (R) 32.3%
•Unsure 30.6%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 44.3%
•Marco Rubio (R) 33.2%
•Unsure 22.5%
In 2007 The BBI
In 2009 The Conservatives
In 2011 They could not make up their collective minds so in many wards they gave their 2 or 3 votes to different parties
In 2013 It was UKIP
In 2015 On recent performance it will be anyone but UKIP
"up to" is their get out clause
An alternative headline could have been "White British children attend more than 99.5% of state schools in England", but that may not have been as effective.
:-)