The best way that UKIP could maximise their chances of winning the referendum would be to voluntarily (no deals) not run against suitable Eurosceptic Tory MPs (and other parties) and aim their fire at the Europhiles
The hitch with this is that with a few exceptions where you sit determines where you stand, so the Europhile Tories will mostly be in seats that are hopeless for UKIP. If they ever want to actually win seats they're going to have to run against relatively like-minded Tories.
Really? They believed the lies they were told at the last EU referendum. Now I would like to think it is a case of not being fooled twice but I am not sure my faith stretches that far.
The principle issue that has catalysed opposition to the EU in recent times has been the flood of immigration from poorer EU members, such as Poland, Romania, etc
Freedom to work across the EU was enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome in the 1950s. In the 1970s it was characterized as a positive for the UK: British builders could go and work in the booming German construction industry! (Hence, eventually, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet).
It would be a great irony that the UK, which did the most to get the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe into the EU, left because of them.
Except of course, Mr. Robert, that it has always been possible for Brits to go and work abroad and for people from other countries to come and work here in the UK. The movement of people for purposes of work is not some sort of magic that only occurred because of the EU.
Really? They believed the lies they were told at the last EU referendum. Now I would like to think it is a case of not being fooled twice but I am not sure my faith stretches that far.
The principle issue that has catalysed opposition to the EU in recent times has been the flood of immigration from poorer EU members, such as Poland, Romania, etc
Freedom to work across the EU was enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome in the 1950s. In the 1970s it was characterized as a positive for the UK: British builders could go and work in the booming German construction industry! (Hence, eventually, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet).
It would be a great irony that the UK, which did the most to get the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe into the EU, left because of them.
Except of course, Mr. Robert, that it has always been possible for Brits to go and work abroad and for people from other countries to come and work here in the UK. The movement of people for purposes of work is not some sort of magic that only occurred because of the EU.
I was directly addressing Mr Tyndall's point about us being lied to in 1973.
And we were not lied to about freedom of movement and freedom to work across the EU.
And that is the primary reason why people are discontented with the EU.
The best way that UKIP could maximise their chances of winning the referendum would be to voluntarily (no deals) not run against suitable Eurosceptic Tory MPs (and other parties) and aim their fire at the Europhiles
The hitch with this is that with a few exceptions where you sit determines where you stand, so the Europhile Tories will mostly be in seats that are hopeless for UKIP. If they ever want to actually win seats they're going to have to run against relatively like-minded Tories.
If they are serious about maximising the likelihood that Cameron supports 'out' in a referendum, then that doesn't matter. All that is important is that (for example) Ken Clarke loses - that way the balance of the party shifts to the Eurosceptic end. This means that either (a) Cameron will be more likely to support Out or (b) Cameron is more likely to be replaced by a BOOer.
@LordAshcroft: My LD-Con marginals poll will be published on Thursday at 11am. Meanwhile, a refresher on Mr Clegg's predicament: http://t.co/e6YePgoVsm
"All Cameron needs to do to get Merkel to offer substantial concessions on the EU is to allow Germany to beat England in the latter stages of the World Cup.
Can anyone see any flaw in this argument?"
And how do you propose we manage to stay in the Wold Cup long enough to even play Germany?
Richard N, UKIP supporters want so much more than simply a referendum. And, in advance of such a referendum, it makes as much sense for UKIP supporters to vote UKIP as it does for SNP supporters to vote SNP. One cannot win a referendum without maximising support and electoral representation.
Apart from a traditional livery for trains, no Romanians, uniforms for taxi drivers, and, of course, no Romanians, can you list these additional wants?
Control of immigration, adequate armed forces, protection of personal freedoms, moderate levels of taxation, the kinds of things the Conservatives once stood for.
The Conservatives still stand for all these values.
Taxation Deficit elimination and debt reduction are the priorities but within this constraint tax increases have been limited to 20% of total fiscal consolidation which is the lowest ratio to expenditure cuts of any advanced economy. In addition, corporation and employment taxes have been reduced to incent economic revival. Few doubt that the Conservatives will prioritise tax reduction as the deficit/debt problems resolve.
Immigration Within the constraints imposed by the UK's freedom of labour movement commitments, more is being done by this government to control immigration than any of its predecessors. You could argue Brexit would enable greater control of our borders but that is a separate and much more complex issue which cannot be isolated to immigration policy.
Armed Forces The UK is meeting its NATO commitment to spend more than 4% of GDP on defence even after regrettable but necessary cuts. It is the only major EU country to so do.
Personal Freedoms Personal security is paramount and the freedoms surrendered to maintain liberty are reasonable in current circumstances. No government in power confronted with the reality revealed by intelligence would take a different line. I would prefer though better messaging and more public debate on the core issues.
Frankly I can't see any better alternative. Farage's idea of liberty is the abolition of the Electoral Commission. Need we ask why?
The best way that UKIP could maximise their chances of winning the referendum would be to voluntarily (no deals) not run against suitable Eurosceptic Tory MPs (and other parties) and aim their fire at the Europhiles
The hitch with this is that with a few exceptions where you sit determines where you stand, so the Europhile Tories will mostly be in seats that are hopeless for UKIP. If they ever want to actually win seats they're going to have to run against relatively like-minded Tories.
If they are serious about maximising the likelihood that Cameron supports 'out' in a referendum, then that doesn't matter. All that is important is that (for example) Ken Clarke loses - that way the balance of the party shifts to the Eurosceptic end. This means that either (a) Cameron will be more likely to support Out or (b) Cameron is more likely to be replaced by a BOOer.
OTOH keeping BOO-curious Tories under pressure allows them to manufacture BOOers...
Really? They believed the lies they were told at the last EU referendum. Now I would like to think it is a case of not being fooled twice but I am not sure my faith stretches that far.
The principle issue that has catalysed opposition to the EU in recent times has been the flood of immigration from poorer EU members, such as Poland, Romania, etc
Freedom to work across the EU was enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome in the 1950s. In the 1970s it was characterized as a positive for the UK: British builders could go and work in the booming German construction industry! (Hence, eventually, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet).
It would be a great irony that the UK, which did the most to get the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe into the EU, left because of them.
Except of course, Mr. Robert, that it has always been possible for Brits to go and work abroad and for people from other countries to come and work here in the UK. The movement of people for purposes of work is not some sort of magic that only occurred because of the EU.
I was directly addressing Mr Tyndall's point about us being lied to in 1973.
And we were not lied to about freedom of movement and freedom to work across the EU.
And that is the primary reason why people are discontented with the EU.
No, you are just picking one area where in fact you know I am not that bothered.
What we were lied to about was the basic aims and intentions of the EEC - the 'ever closer union' and the loss of sovereignty that membership of the 'trading club' would actually entail.
"All Cameron needs to do to get Merkel to offer substantial concessions on the EU is to allow Germany to beat England in the latter stages of the World Cup.
Can anyone see any flaw in this argument?"
And how do you propose we manage to stay in the Wold Cup long enough to even play Germany?
We'll renegotiate the terms of group promotion then put our solution to a FIFA vote.
16% is relatively good for UKIP since I think ICM usually has them on a lower rating than other pollsters.
10% is, on the other hand, really piss poor for the Lib Dems. 35 people out of 1000 would be my guess as to the number saying they will vote Lib Dem. 10 out of 10s, 25.
The best way that UKIP could maximise their chances of winning the referendum would be to voluntarily (no deals) not run against suitable Eurosceptic Tory MPs (and other parties) and aim their fire at the Europhiles
The hitch with this is that with a few exceptions where you sit determines where you stand, so the Europhile Tories will mostly be in seats that are hopeless for UKIP. If they ever want to actually win seats they're going to have to run against relatively like-minded Tories.
If they are serious about maximising the likelihood that Cameron supports 'out' in a referendum, then that doesn't matter. All that is important is that (for example) Ken Clarke loses - that way the balance of the party shifts to the Eurosceptic end. This means that either (a) Cameron will be more likely to support Out or (b) Cameron is more likely to be replaced by a BOOer.
I would agree with that. Changing the Tory party is the best way to achieve what BOO want - and that cannot happen with a Europhile in charge.
"All Cameron needs to do to get Merkel to offer substantial concessions on the EU is to allow Germany to beat England in the latter stages of the World Cup.
Can anyone see any flaw in this argument?"
And how do you propose we manage to stay in the Wold Cup long enough to even play Germany?
We'll renegotiate the terms of group promotion then put our solution to a FIFA vote.
Easy but expensive.
Not sure it's going to be enough to satisfy the fifa-sceptics:
Richard N, UKIP supporters want so much more than simply a referendum. And, in advance of such a referendum, it makes as much sense for UKIP supporters to vote UKIP as it does for SNP supporters to vote SNP. One cannot win a referendum without maximising support and electoral representation.
Apart from a traditional livery for trains, no Romanians, uniforms for taxi drivers, and, of course, no Romanians, can you list these additional wants?
Stannah stairlifts in every hotel for Maltese invalid ladies.
"All Cameron needs to do to get Merkel to offer substantial concessions on the EU is to allow Germany to beat England in the latter stages of the World Cup.
Can anyone see any flaw in this argument?"
And how do you propose we manage to stay in the Wold Cup long enough to even play Germany?
We'll renegotiate the terms of group promotion then put our solution to a FIFA vote.
Easy but expensive.
Not sure it's going to be enough to satisfy the fifa-sceptics:
"Armed Forces The UK is meeting its NATO commitment to spend more than 4% of GDP on defence even after regrettable but necessary cuts. It is the only major EU country to so do."
4%?!!!!! Either that's a typo or you are off your head. Whether Cameron manages to keep Defence spending at 2% of GDP (the NATO commitment) is a moot point (my guess is that he won't). Where you get this 4% nonsense from, I don't know.
@Steve_Tierney Some in the SNP will vote against independence?
Welcome to the hell that is Political Betting
Quite a well-known phenomenon, if you mean voters rather than actual party members I take it (apologies if I am wrong). Quite a few folk like the SNP and regard it as the natural and efficient party o government in Scotland (when compared to the alternatives in terms of quantity or quality), and/or a decent social democratic party, and/or standing up for the devolution settlement, without being signed up to indy.
A few more polls with Labour on 32% and a hung parliament is nailed on IMO.
Tories on 31% and down 3 doesnt look like a Tory PM though IMHO
Worth remembering that the Conservatives have been out-performing the polls by around 2%. I think the 'shy Tory' syndrome may well be a feature right now.
16% is relatively good for UKIP since I think ICM usually has them on a lower rating than other pollsters.
10% is, on the other hand, really piss poor for the Lib Dems. 35 people out of 1000 would be my guess as to the number saying they will vote Lib Dem. 10 out of 10s, 25.
All their councillors will now have been elected/re-elected since the 2010 election, so presumably many areas now have no LD councillors/advocates.
It would be nice to know how important an MEP's office is for political party machines.
"The European Parliament makes available the sum of €21,209 per month towards the cost of an MEP employing staff."
Hush, Mr Smarmeron, hush. As was noted on here yesterday the numbers of criminals being sent to gaol is increasing. However, the number of crimes is, we are told, decreasing. Trying to reconcile those two facts is likely to cause serious brain fade.
He can get a deal done, but (assuming it is a Treaty - which I'm not sure it needs to be) then it would always be subject to ratification.
The referendum would be between Out and Stay In on Amended Terms (SIAT).
Assuming - after the referendum - SIAT is no longer an option (and I would exclude from this the kind of minor amends and revotes we've seen in the past) then I think the government would need to call a second referendum with a straight In/Out question.
The problem is that a negotiation cycle in the EU is not really compatible with a 5 year term - and Cameron is unable to start anything formal right now because the LibDems keep blocking him. So he is working the ground, getting read for a post 2015 discussion.
If Cameron had been honestly looking for meaningful and enforceable renegotiation he could have started negotiations two years ago with a deadline on a deal for shortly after the next election. At that point there would have been 4 years or so for any new treaty to be ratified and a UK referendum on the revised EU deal could have been put to the public at the end of the next Parliament.
This would have had the benefit of showing commitment to the deal by the rest of the EU and also would,have gone a long way to showing that Cameron was serious about the renegotiation. As it is there is no deal that can now be secured that we can be confident will not be reversed or overturned and since Cameron must know this there is no way we can believe his claims about meaningful renegotiation.
Comments
I think Charles wants them to concentrate on Labour marginals. But didn't want to appear "pushy". (being the gentleman he is)
And we were not lied to about freedom of movement and freedom to work across the EU.
And that is the primary reason why people are discontented with the EU.
"All Cameron needs to do to get Merkel to offer substantial concessions on the EU is to allow Germany to beat England in the latter stages of the World Cup.
Can anyone see any flaw in this argument?"
And how do you propose we manage to stay in the Wold Cup long enough to even play Germany?
Amer Ahmed, a 50-year-old father of five, says his predominantly Sunni district of Ameriyia has been "swamped" by Shia groups carrying guns."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2014/jun/17/iraq-crisis-obama-deploys-troops-live-updates
Taxation Deficit elimination and debt reduction are the priorities but within this constraint tax increases have been limited to 20% of total fiscal consolidation which is the lowest ratio to expenditure cuts of any advanced economy. In addition, corporation and employment taxes have been reduced to incent economic revival. Few doubt that the Conservatives will prioritise tax reduction as the deficit/debt problems resolve.
Immigration Within the constraints imposed by the UK's freedom of labour movement commitments, more is being done by this government to control immigration than any of its predecessors. You could argue Brexit would enable greater control of our borders but that is a separate and much more complex issue which cannot be isolated to immigration policy.
Armed Forces The UK is meeting its NATO commitment to spend more than 4% of GDP on defence even after regrettable but necessary cuts. It is the only major EU country to so do.
Personal Freedoms Personal security is paramount and the freedoms surrendered to maintain liberty are reasonable in current circumstances. No government in power confronted with the reality revealed by intelligence would take a different line. I would prefer though better messaging and more public debate on the core issues.
Frankly I can't see any better alternative. Farage's idea of liberty is the abolition of the Electoral Commission. Need we ask why?
What we were lied to about was the basic aims and intentions of the EEC - the 'ever closer union' and the loss of sovereignty that membership of the 'trading club' would actually entail.
I am glad they have cleared that up.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/17/mass-surveillance-social-media-permitted-uk-law-charles-farr
Easy but expensive.
There'll be a few [more] facepalms in Stockholm Oslo, at any rate.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqIthfACYAAq42V.jpg
Hell will freeze over before they suggest MP's should be qualified so why teachers?
"Delay on tougher sentences for knife crime to avoid prison overcrowding"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/17/delay-tougher-sentences-knife-crime
Horses are much better animals than those crap, overpaid footballers.
"Armed Forces The UK is meeting its NATO commitment to spend more than 4% of GDP on defence even after regrettable but necessary cuts. It is the only major EU country to so do."
4%?!!!!! Either that's a typo or you are off your head. Whether Cameron manages to keep Defence spending at 2% of GDP (the NATO commitment) is a moot point (my guess is that he won't). Where you get this 4% nonsense from, I don't know.
It would be nice to know how important an MEP's office is for political party machines.
"The European Parliament makes available the sum of €21,209 per month towards the cost of an MEP employing staff."
http://www.rebeccataylor.eu/pay-and-expenses-statement/
This would have had the benefit of showing commitment to the deal by the rest of the EU and also would,have gone a long way to showing that Cameron was serious about the renegotiation. As it is there is no deal that can now be secured that we can be confident will not be reversed or overturned and since Cameron must know this there is no way we can believe his claims about meaningful renegotiation.