They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
I don't see what the fuss about multi-member ratification is.
You simply make the "IN" option conditional on the treaty being ratified
"We will stay in on these amended terms or we will leave".
Now, admittedly, that could put the ability to kick the UK out of the EU into the hands of another country (I'm not worried about plebiscites, but some countries I think have parliamentary ratification). That said, if they want to kick us out rather than accept a renegotiated settlement then I'm not sure we want to be members anyway.
Anyone who stays in the Cabinet and campaigns for in after Cameron claims he has succeeded, cannot with any credibility claim they were forced. As you say, they will have been asked to sacrifice their jobs or their credibility. If they stay with Cameron purely to keep a Cabinet job despite wanting to campaign for out, then we are all the better for it, as we will be spared their lack of credibility when he falls.
The plainly idiotic bit isn't the party management, although that pretty piss poor, its telling your opponent (The EU) what you have in your hand before you start playing cards. Saying there is no circumstance under which he or his cabinet would campaign for out is just going to get him told to piss off when he tries to start his renegotiation, and then he will have dream up some bit of meaningless tinsel to try and sell to the British public.
The question then becomes which scenario will we have:
a) "I have in my hand a printed email, signed by Frau Merkel, that endorses the renegotiated treaty of membership in the European Union. I commend the Treaty to the House and to the Country"
b)"Despite my best efforts, I have failed to persuade the other members of the European Union of the need to address the concerns of the British people over our continuing membership. I am therefore forced to conclude that Britain's interests can only be served by withdrawal from the European Union and I commend this to the House and to the Country."
I suspect there are circumstances under which the majority of Conservatives could support either a) or b) but there will be those who couldn't support either.
They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
In that case the referendum is in/out on present terms.
!
It is rather amusing in its way - we won't get anything significant of course, but if we did (or something that people could be made to believe was), then the other nations, some of them at any rate, would almost certainly vote it down, not unreasonably on the basis of why should we get more stuff.
Yes, Cameron has stitched up his front benchers good and proper. We all know Cameron is going to recommend staying in whatever he gets from Brussels, so cabinet ministers are going to be expected to go out and claim something's a great deal entirely on the whims of Angela Merkel. They will have to sacrifice either their jobs or their credibility because Cameron's strategic ineptness has backed himself into a corner. Knowing that he's going over a cliff, he's now intent on taking all other senior conservatives with him.
And if this is the way his closest colleagues are going to be treated, you can be damn sure that any junior MP will have their careers threatened if they dare argue for leaving.
He's made it very clear that if you support leaving the EU, the Tory party is not the one for you.
Out of interest, do you believe that Cameron will actually deliver a referendum (regardless of what he personally recommends)? I ask because the overwhelming Kipper position is that a referendum will never occur because Dave fully intends to renege at the last minute. You seem semi-detached from the UKIP mainstream in this regard.
I actually think he will try and kick it down the road. Come 2017 we will be told that negotiations are looking promising but are at a delicate stage and he needs another 18 months to iron out all the details. After 18 months they will be "almost there" but it will be too close to the next election to get distracted by an EU referendum, so it will get kicked down the road again.
Anyone who stays in the Cabinet and campaigns for in after Cameron claims he has succeeded, cannot with any credibility claim they were forced. As you say, they will have been asked to sacrifice their jobs or their credibility. If they stay with Cameron purely to keep a Cabinet job despite wanting to campaign for out, then we are all the better for it, as we will be spared their lack of credibility when he falls.
The plainly idiotic bit isn't the party management, although that pretty piss poor, its telling your opponent (The EU) what you have in your hand before you start playing cards. Saying there is no circumstance under which he or his cabinet would campaign for out is just going to get him told to piss off when he tries to start his renegotiation, and then he will have dream up some bit of meaningless tinsel to try and sell to the British public.
The question then becomes which scenario will we have:
a) "I have in my hand a printed email, signed by Frau Merkel, that endorses the renegotiated treaty of membership in the European Union. I commend the Treaty to the House and to the Country"
b)"Despite my best efforts, I have failed to persuade the other members of the European Union of the need to address the concerns of the British people over our continuing membership. I am therefore forced to conclude that Britain's interests can only be served by withdrawal from the European Union and I commend this to the House and to the Country."
I suspect there are circumstances under which the majority of Conservatives could support either a) or b) but there will be those who couldn't support either.
They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
In that case the referendum is in/out on present terms.
The prospect of two years of Tories banging heads over Europe makes Miliband and Balls seem appealing!
You're in a no win position. The alternative is Labour\SNP and five more years of Neverendum.
The prospect of endless Constitutional plebiscites is indeed pretty depressing.
But a useful circus to distract the population from the real issues.
with no money about, it;s the only show in town :-(
I am starting to lose count now of how many threads in a row indicating this is a terrible night / day/ week / month/ year / poll / outcome/ result/ situation for the Tories or anyone acquainted with or even slightly or somewhat right of centre.
Yes, Cameron has stitched up his front benchers good and proper. We all know Cameron is going to recommend staying in whatever he gets from Brussels, so cabinet ministers are going to be expected to go out and claim something's a great deal entirely on the whims of Angela Merkel. They will have to sacrifice either their jobs or their credibility because Cameron's strategic ineptness has backed himself into a corner. Knowing that he's going over a cliff, he's now intent on taking all other senior conservatives with him.
And if this is the way his closest colleagues are going to be treated, you can be damn sure that any junior MP will have their careers threatened if they dare argue for leaving.
He's made it very clear that if you support leaving the EU, the Tory party is not the one for you.
Out of interest, do you believe that Cameron will actually deliver a referendum (regardless of what he personally recommends)? I ask because the overwhelming Kipper position is that a referendum will never occur because Dave fully intends to renege at the last minute. You seem semi-detached from the UKIP mainstream in this regard.
I actually think he will try and kick it down the road. Come 2017 we will be told that negotiations are looking promising but are at a delicate stage and he needs another 18 months to iron out all the details. After 18 months they will be "almost there" but it will be too close to the next election to get distracted by an EU referendum, so it will get kicked down the road again.
I doubt he will get away with that
Depends how you define getting away with it. He 'got away' with 'not letting it stand there' last time, in the minds of the rump Tory party.
The problem is why do this now ? He just looks shifty, it's a re-run of cast iron Dave.
Er, because he was asked the direct question on live television.
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
Cabinet responsibility refers to supporting government bills put up to parliament, not to a popular referendum.
This is just Cameron showing his true Europhile credentials. He's going to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation even if all we get is a nice press release.
Just last week Tories on here were arguing that Cameron's renegotiation was credible because people like Gove and Hammond would call him out if he didn't achieve much. Look how long that argument lasted!
Well, if Gove and Hammond feel that strongly that the deal is inadequate, then they can resign from the Government, which in itself would represent a huge boost to the NO campaign. So what are you moaning about?
Closer to the date, I imagine Cameron will suspend collective responsiblity, but Harold Wilson did not fight the 1974 campaigns on that basis and Cameron is probably holding that card in reserve.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
I'm not sure what's a worse argument: that one, or your follow-up that, when it comes to the EU, Cameron and the Tories are just like Wilson and Labour.
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
He hasn't said there are no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
Even if he had, so what? It won't be David Cameron that our EU friends need to convince. One of the great mysteries of the UKIP/BOO position in one breath they tell us that the British people are fed up with the EU and would like to leave, if only those pesky Westinster politicians would give them the chance, in the next breath they tell us that David Cameon is hopeless at politics and no-one trusts him, and then they get all het up because they don't think they'll have David Cameron on their side in the referendum. On the last point they are probably right, but their own logic would lead to the conclusion that that should be an advantage for the Out side.
The decision on the EU referendum by Ed Miliband has proven to be a masterpiece.Only an Ed Miliband government will offer the UK the stability it needs after the shocks of the indyref.... An EU referendum is not in the national interest and the Tories internal problems forever banging on about Europe with Farage holding Cameron on strings providing the policy.Only Labour can prevent this potential catastrophe to our nation.The Tories and Cameron are putting this all at risk.
Miliband doesn't want an EU referendum because he has inherited his father's contempt for the English people and doesn't want them to have decision-making power. He believes referenda are only for the Scots and the Welsh. It's the same reason he doesn't want an English parliament, doesn't want England in his Senate of the Nations, wants Scots and Welsh MPs deciding on English-only matters, and wants to continue to replace English culture with foreign culture via mass immigration. In his view, the English are to be subjugated by any means necessary.
Spot on. This is inarguable fact and in no way insane.
The plainly idiotic bit isn't the party management, although that pretty piss poor, its telling your opponent (The EU) what you have in your hand before you start playing cards.
There is no negotiation with the EU.
The EU is like a golf club. It is the decisions of the other members that matter.
Cameron would be negotiating with the other heads of state (Merkel, Holland, Renzi, Rajoy etc.) to get changes made to EU treaties.
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
"If you can give me something I can sell to the British people, then when I win the referendum we will finally reduce our public complaining about the EU. Not totally of course, but the people will have made their choice, which means governmentally we can be more flexible than we had to be before"
Afraid so. I look forward to seeing how long into Miliband austerity it will be before people start complaining about how it feels the same as Tory austerity. A little while I'm thinking, they will have the 'blame the previous government' defence for quite some time thereafter (Labour were still using it 13 years in before), but it should be pretty amusing.
They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
I don't see what the fuss about multi-member ratification is.
You simply make the "IN" option conditional on the treaty being ratified
"We will stay in on these amended terms or we will leave".
Now, admittedly, that could put the ability to kick the UK out of the EU into the hands of another country (I'm not worried about plebiscites, but some countries I think have parliamentary ratification). That said, if they want to kick us out rather than accept a renegotiated settlement then I'm not sure we want to be members anyway.
You think France wouldn;t want to see the back of us ?
Annoying them is probably one of the biggest reasons for staying in. :-)
As far as I'm aware, the only person saying Cameron is hopeless at politics is SeanT, an admitted eurofederalist. Most of us eurosceptics think Cameron is reasonable at politics, just crap at diplomacy and lacking in principle.
The decision on the EU referendum by Ed Miliband has proven to be a masterpiece.Only an Ed Miliband government will offer the UK the stability it needs after the shocks of the indyref.... An EU referendum is not in the national interest and the Tories internal problems forever banging on about Europe with Farage holding Cameron on strings providing the policy.Only Labour can prevent this potential catastrophe to our nation.The Tories and Cameron are putting this all at risk.
Miliband doesn't want an EU referendum because he has inherited his father's contempt for the English people and doesn't want them to have decision-making power. He believes referenda are only for the Scots and the Welsh. It's the same reason he doesn't want an English parliament, doesn't want England in his Senate of the Nations, wants Scots and Welsh MPs deciding on English-only matters, and wants to continue to replace English culture with foreign culture via mass immigration. In his view, the English are to be subjugated by any means necessary.
Spot on. This is inarguable fact and in no way insane.
His father is on the record as being contemptuous of the English people, Miliband has said his leadership is a homage to his father, and he has a series of anti-English policies. You can't see the wood for trees because you are both a leftist and a patriot, and can't bring yourself to accept that the leaders of the political left in Britain are not.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
As far as I'm aware, the only person saying Cameron is hopeless at politics is SeanT, an admitted eurofederalist. Most of us eurosceptics think Cameron is reasonable at politics, just crap at diplomacy and lacking in principle.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
Mr. Dawning, a three line whip on EU membership in a referendum would only accentuate the differences within the party. Cameron can want a unified front bench on the matter in the same way I can want the Swedish Nymphomaniac Association tour bus to break down outside my house.
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie 5h5 hours ago Silly for Cameron to say Cabinet ministers won't be able to campaign for Out. There'll be resignations... #MarrShow
Just when I think there isn't anything more the Tories can do that I despair of, Cameron says now, before the renegotiation that his ministers won't be allowed to campaign for Out. Sorry but the guy is just as big an idiot as Ed Miliband.
I presume this means that IF there is a renegotiated package which Cameron feels able to recommend to the British public in a referendum, he would expect under collective responsibility for his Cabinet to support him and it.
That's fair enough and if anyone in his Cabinet can't support that, they have to go.
The 1975 experience won't be lost on Cameron - it was a big step on the eventual road to schism for Labour and Wilson's attempt at principled neutrality made no difference. It must be a concern that history will repeat itself only with the Conservatives facing a split. In addition, Cameron has invested so much personal political capital in this referendum that were his position to be rejected, his own career would be forfeit.
Very well put. It never ceases to amaze me that, when it comes to all things EU, many on the right are prepared to chuck the principal rules of political good judgement straight out the window.
Only because people like yourself and Cameron are apparently willing to chuck principles out of the window.
Mr. Dawning, a three line whip on EU membership in a referendum would only accentuate the differences within the party. Cameron can want a unified front bench on the matter in the same way I can want the Swedish Nymphomaniac Association tour bus to break down outside my house.
I think that a three line whip would be more like the Swedish Nymphomaniac Tour bus all voting to lock themselves in chastity belts before going to see the Russell Brand show!*
The plainly idiotic bit isn't the party management, although that pretty piss poor, its telling your opponent (The EU) what you have in your hand before you start playing cards.
There is no negotiation with the EU.
The EU is like a golf club. It is the decisions of the other members that matter.
Cameron would be negotiating with the other heads of state (Merkel, Holland, Renzi, Rajoy etc.) to get changes made to EU treaties.
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.
You need to have some empathy here. What is it that Remzi, etc. want? Do they want the UK in the EU? Is the EU without Britain worse for them? Are there reforms they personally want? What is acceptable to their own electorates?
And they are all aware of the political situation in the UK. They know David Cameron's support on its own may not be enough. They know that support for membership is on a knife-edge, and - if they wish the EU to continue with the UK in it, then they will be keen to help.
Like it or not, the compromises the UK seek have to work for all the members of the EU. Their leaders and people deserve a say in the running of the golf club (EU) the same way ours do. Otherwise - on way or another - it will cease to exist sooner rather than later.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the refeerendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Except that Cameron will lie about the extent to what he's achieved, force all his ministers and aspiring ministers to publicly back his argument, and likely time the referendum before the renegotiations have finished. And if UKIP simply stood down as you ludicrously claim they should do, the only voice for out from within parliament would be a handful of Tory backbenchers, who would struggle to get on the BBC debate because the leadership obviously wouldn't let them have their party's spots.
You only want a referendum that's rigged in favour of the EU. No wonder you're a Cameroon.
As far as I'm aware, the only person saying Cameron is hopeless at politics is SeanT, an admitted eurofederalist. Most of us eurosceptics think Cameron is reasonable at politics, just crap at diplomacy and lacking in principle.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
Lets look at the evidence... He couldn't win a majority against Gordon Brown, he's pissed off quite a large chunk of the core Conservative Vote, when they moved to UKIP he insulted them so there is no chance of them coming back, he wasted a lot of time hugging hoodies and husking chasing voters who would rather die than vote Conservative, he's pissed off a fair chunk of the Conservative parliamentary party with his inept management, and he's pissed off a fair chunk of the other EU leaders, and the European Commission, whilst actually not having a whole lot to show for any of it, and now he is going to fail to win a majority against Ed "Bacon Sandwich" Miliband.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
The more widely shared that view is, the more incomprehensible it is that the Kippers and BOOers feel that they can't win unless he's on their side.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
Mr. 1000, it's almost as if the EU's inherently unworkable because anything it decides will be bad for a significant minority (at least) of its member states.
Machiavelli stated 4-6 was the maximum number for a workable confederacy, I think.
Classifying parties as left or right is a restricted two dimensional view and gives us problems when trying to pigeon hole Lib Dems, UKIP, SNP or the Greens all of whom have lefy and right aspects.
What other ctiteria can we use?
I suggest liberal and illiberal (small 'L' of course).
I see Labour, UKIP, SNP and the Greens as illiberal whilst
They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
I don't see what the fuss about multi-member ratification is.
You simply make the "IN" option conditional on the treaty being ratified
"We will stay in on these amended terms or we will leave".
Now, admittedly, that could put the ability to kick the UK out of the EU into the hands of another country (I'm not worried about plebiscites, but some countries I think have parliamentary ratification). That said, if they want to kick us out rather than accept a renegotiated settlement then I'm not sure we want to be members anyway.
You think France wouldn;t want to see the back of us ?
Annoying them is probably one of the biggest reasons for staying in. :-)
Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it? Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
The decision on the EU referendum by Ed Miliband has proven to be a masterpiece.Only an Ed Miliband government will offer the UK the stability it needs after the shocks of the indyref.... An EU referendum is not in the national interest and the Tories internal problems forever banging on about Europe with Farage holding Cameron on strings providing the policy.Only Labour can prevent this potential catastrophe to our nation.The Tories and Cameron are putting this all at risk.
Miliband doesn't want an EU referendum because he has inherited his father's contempt for the English people and doesn't want them to have decision-making power. He believes referenda are only for the Scots and the Welsh. It's the same reason he doesn't want an English parliament, doesn't want England in his Senate of the Nations, wants Scots and Welsh MPs deciding on English-only matters, and wants to continue to replace English culture with foreign culture via mass immigration. In his view, the English are to be subjugated by any means necessary.
Spot on. This is inarguable fact and in no way insane.
His father is on the record as being contemptuous of the English people, Miliband has said his leadership is a homage to his father, and he has a series of anti-English policies. You can't see the wood for trees because you are both a leftist and a patriot, and can't bring yourself to accept that the leaders of the political left in Britain are not.
How old was Miliband's father when he wrote that one sentence? He was sixteen. Unlike you, I do not believe that what people say or write at sixteen should define their global outlook for all time. I also do not believe that opposition to an English parliament makes you anti-English, or that refusing to go along with Tory plans for EV4EL does either.
Only a true Catholic would be posting on a political forum rather than going to church on a Sunday morning.
What a nasty unpleasant, bigoted little comment. One that reveals rather more about you and the party you support than you intended. Don't agree with my posts so rather than challenge the content you insinuate that I'm a hyprocite.
And, as it happens no I didn't go to Mass last night. I'm going this evening.
Don't drag your faith onto the forum and use it as a tool (apt word) for your pro UKIP views if you don't want it scrutinised, buddy.
Boris Johnson is the biggest and longest-running non-story that I can think of in the 35 years I have been following UK politics. The idea that he will ever get anywhere near the Tory Party leadership, let alone the Premiership, is just pure London-media hype, and the reality is he probably wouldn't even win the next London Mayor election if he were to stand again. Quite amazing how the media keep this totally unrealistic story alive.
Quite.
"buddy"? I truly despair.
And it's bad form to agree with your own sockpuppet.
Surely the whole purpose of Sockpuppets is that they agree with you?
Though no fan of political Christianity, I though AudreyAnne was out of order.
I should have said "expressly". Gives the game away.
Classifying parties as left or right is a restricted two dimensional view and gives us problems when trying to pigeon hole Lib Dems, UKIP, SNP or the Greens all of whom have lefy and right aspects.
What other ctiteria can we use?
I suggest liberal and illiberal (small 'L' of course).
I see Labour, UKIP, SNP and the Greens as illiberal whilst
Conservative and Lib Dems as liberal.
Any thoughts?
The Tories, party of mass surveillance, the snooper's charter, the porn ban, and clamping down on free speech, are liberal? What next, the Greens are the party of economic growth?
Mr. Dawning, a three line whip on EU membership in a referendum would only accentuate the differences within the party. Cameron can want a unified front bench on the matter in the same way I can want the Swedish Nymphomaniac Association tour bus to break down outside my house.
I am quite sure it will be a free vote for Conservative MPs. The front bench is a different matter, of course.
In practice there will be an Out campaign run (amongst Tory MPs) by someone like Owen Paterson. Whoever leads that campaign would become PM if the public vote to leave.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
I think the biggest issue "Out" faces is that various people who might vote "Out" want different things. For example, while I obviously support no benefits for migrants, I support the widest degree of freedom of movement for labour as possible. If leaving the EU means that greater restrictions on me hiring who I want to hire, then I would have to vote to stay.
On the other hand, if we plan on having a relationship with the EU like Norway, where we are free of much of the legislation and cost, but maintain freedom of labour, goods, services and capital, then I would vote to leave.
So Cameron is being weak and inept by stating exactly where he stands, his party stands and where his ministers will stand if they want to remain ministers? Only in UKIP land.
The tory position is crystal. Funnily enough it is not the same as UKIP. So people have a choice. Cameron's position is the agreed tory position. Negotiate for a better settlement and then fight for it. And give the UK public the final say.
Or if they cannot make up their minds or just don't care they can always pretend that Labour agree with them. After all, anything is possible.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the refeerendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Except that Cameron will lie about the extent to what he's achieved, force all his ministers and aspiring ministers to publicly back his argument,. .
That's their problem. If they would bend to that sort of pressure over their own beliefs, we are well rid of them. Regardless, you clearly think very little of the ministers and aspiring ministers - I think many will definitely resign in those circumstances. Quite apart from their own political beliefs, after so long with Cameron at the head of the party and a vote on such a divisive issue for the party, no heavyweights and aspiring ministers will take the chance Cameron will lose the referendum and put their weight behind it and those who speak in favour of Out, so they can be in good with the BOOers? Not credible.
Much as I loathe Brand, I reckon he'd come out on top in a skirmish with Balls.
I have to admit a liking for Balls (no jokes please). I don't agree with him on any of his economic positions, would not be particularly happy to see him become CoE but as a person he has unfailingly come over as a decent bloke in every interview and every report I have ever seen on him. I think he is misguided as a politician but think he is the sort of bloke I would happily sit and chat with.
Classifying parties as left or right is a restricted two dimensional view and gives us problems when trying to pigeon hole Lib Dems, UKIP, SNP or the Greens all of whom have lefy and right aspects.
What other ctiteria can we use?
I suggest liberal and illiberal (small 'L' of course).
I see Labour, UKIP, SNP and the Greens as illiberal whilst
Conservative and Lib Dems as liberal.
Any thoughts?
I prefer liberal and illiberal, it seems like it would be easier to come upon a mostly agreed definition of where the line stands than Left and Right, where they jump all over the place on various issues while pretending to some great moral ideology is tying it all together.
Not sure the Cons or even the LDs are all that liberal in some ways though, sadly. I'd be very interested if people can come up with a better classification than what we have though.
The decision on the EU referendum by Ed Miliband has proven to be a masterpiece.Only an Ed Miliband government will offer the UK the stability it needs after the shocks of the indyref.... An EU referendum is not in the national interest and the Tories internal problems forever banging on about Europe with Farage holding Cameron on strings providing the policy.Only Labour can prevent this potential catastrophe to our nation.The Tories and Cameron are putting this all at risk.
Miliband doesn't want an EU referendum because he has inherited his father's contempt for the English people and doesn't want them to have decision-making power. He believes referenda are only for the Scots and the Welsh. It's the same reason he doesn't want an English parliament, doesn't want England in his Senate of the Nations, wants Scots and Welsh MPs deciding on English-only matters, and wants to continue to replace English culture with foreign culture via mass immigration. In his view, the English are to be subjugated by any means necessary.
Spot on. This is inarguable fact and in no way insane.
His father is on the record as being contemptuous of the English people, Miliband has said his leadership is a homage to his father, and he has a series of anti-English policies. You can't see the wood for trees because you are both a leftist and a patriot, and can't bring yourself to accept that the leaders of the political left in Britain are not.
How old was Miliband's father when he wrote that one sentence? He was sixteen. Unlike you, I do not believe that what people say or write at sixteen should define their global outlook for all time. I also do not believe that opposition to an English parliament makes you anti-English, or that refusing to go along with Tory plans for EV4EL does either.
If someone later turns around and retracts their previously expressed views, then sure. But Ralph Miliband never did. Can you point to a single patriotic statement he ever made? He preferred to fight for the Belgians than the country that took him in. For his entire life, he disdained British "bourgeois democracy", preferring to replace it with a communist system.
You're right that opposing English devolution on its own doesn't make you anti-English. But opposing it while backing even greater devolution for other home nations sure as hell does. And Miliband doesn't just oppose the Tory plans for EV4EL. He opposes any version. He wants Scots and Welsh MPs to vote on English matters with absolutely no reciprocity the other way. That's anti-English.
So Cameron is being weak and inept by stating exactly where he stands, his party stands and where his ministers will stand if they want to remain ministers? Only in UKIP land.
It's amazing. Cameron is "shifty" for honestly answering a direct question on live TV.
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
He hasn't said there are no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
The tory position is crystal. Funnily enough it is not the same as UKIP. So people have a choice. Cameron's position is the agreed tory position. Negotiate for a better settlement and then fight for it. And give the UK public the final say.
No it isn't, his position is that he will never campaign to take us out of the EU. So irrespective of what happens at the renegotiation.
The problem is why do this now ? He just looks shifty, it's a re-run of cast iron Dave.
Er, because he was asked the direct question on live television.
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
I've defended the Prime Minister down thread so I won't repeat myself.
The question then becomes which scenario will we have:
a) "I have in my hand a printed email, signed by Frau Merkel, that endorses the renegotiated treaty of membership in the European Union. I commend the Treaty to the House and to the Country"
b)"Despite my best efforts, I have failed to persuade the other members of the European Union of the need to address the concerns of the British people over our continuing membership. I am therefore forced to conclude that Britain's interests can only be served by withdrawal from the European Union and I commend this to the House and to the Country."
I suspect there are circumstances under which the majority of Conservatives could support either a) or b) but there will be those who couldn't support either.
But he has not said Ministers cannot campaign against the Government line, but specifically that they cannot campaign for an Out vote. Which automatically precludes your second scenario.
Yes, Cameron has stitched up his front benchers good and proper. We all know Cameron is going to recommend staying in whatever he gets from Brussels, so cabinet ministers are going to be expected to go out and claim something's a great deal entirely on the whims of Angela Merkel. They will have to sacrifice either their jobs or their credibility because Cameron's strategic ineptness has backed himself into a corner. Knowing that he's going over a cliff, he's now intent on taking all other senior conservatives with him.
And if this is the way his closest colleagues are going to be treated, you can be damn sure that any junior MP will have their careers threatened if they dare argue for leaving.
He's made it very clear that if you support leaving the EU, the Tory party is not the one for you.
Out of interest, do you believe that Cameron will actually deliver a referendum (regardless of what he personally recommends)? I ask because the overwhelming Kipper position is that a referendum will never occur because Dave fully intends to renege at the last minute. You seem semi-detached from the UKIP mainstream in this regard.
I actually think he will try and kick it down the road. Come 2017 we will be told that negotiations are looking promising but are at a delicate stage and he needs another 18 months to iron out all the details. After 18 months they will be "almost there" but it will be too close to the next election to get distracted by an EU referendum, so it will get kicked down the road again.
I doubt he will get away with that
Depends how you define getting away with it. He 'got away' with 'not letting it stand there' last time, in the minds of the rump Tory party.
Getting away with it is "keeping his job". He's made a promise to a big and powerful part of his MPs and if he obfuscates it will be very difficult for him
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
He hasn't said there are no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
But Mr Cameron will not countenance leaving the EU and says he would never campaign for an “out” vote in a referendum.
You are quoting the Daily Telegraph's rather lazy summary of what Cameron said in that interview. He did not say there were no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
So Cameron is being weak and inept by stating exactly where he stands, his party stands and where his ministers will stand if they want to remain ministers? Only in UKIP land.
It's amazing. Cameron is "shifty" for honestly answering a direct question on live TV.
What does that make Nige?
Who cares about Nige, he isn't going to be PM, and he isn't going to be negotiating with the EU. This whataboutery is getting very tedious.
Yes, Cameron has stitched up his front benchers good and proper. We all know Cameron is going to recommend staying in whatever he gets from Brussels, so cabinet ministers are going to be expected to go out and claim something's a great deal entirely on the whims of Angela Merkel. They will have to sacrifice either their jobs or their credibility because Cameron's strategic ineptness has backed himself into a corner. Knowing that he's going over a cliff, he's now intent on taking all other senior conservatives with him.
And if this is the way his closest colleagues are going to be treated, you can be damn sure that any junior MP will have their careers threatened if they dare argue for leaving.
He's made it very clear that if you support leaving the EU, the Tory party is not the one for you.
Out of interest, do you believe that Cameron will actually deliver a referendum (regardless of what he personally recommends)? I ask because the overwhelming Kipper position is that a referendum will never occur because Dave fully intends to renege at the last minute. You seem semi-detached from the UKIP mainstream in this regard.
I actually think he will try and kick it down the road. Come 2017 we will be told that negotiations are looking promising but are at a delicate stage and he needs another 18 months to iron out all the details. After 18 months they will be "almost there" but it will be too close to the next election to get distracted by an EU referendum, so it will get kicked down the road again.
I doubt he will get away with that
Depends how you define getting away with it. He 'got away' with 'not letting it stand there' last time, in the minds of the rump Tory party.
Getting away with it is "keeping his job". He's made a promise to a big and powerful part of his MPs and if he obfuscates it will be very difficult for him
Yeah, I think the number of times the can be kicked down the road has been reached, particularly with the UKIP thread larger than ever. If he gets the chance to deliver one, he will. As it is, I presume one of the things people will say was why he loses in 2015 was because he didn't offer a referendum sooner, fairly or not.
Much as I loathe Brand, I reckon he'd come out on top in a skirmish with Balls.
I have to admit a liking for Balls (no jokes please). I don't agree with him on any of his economic positions, would not be particularly happy to see him become CoE but as a person he has unfailingly come over as a decent bloke in every interview and every report I have ever seen on him. I think he is misguided as a politician but think he is the sort of bloke I would happily sit and chat with.
Brand on the other hand is a stuck up arse.
Certainly agree on the second point. Balls annoys me because he is obviously seriously clever and must know that much that he spouts is dishonest rubbish. And he just doesn't care, thinking it is all a part of the game.
So Cameron is being weak and inept by stating exactly where he stands, his party stands and where his ministers will stand if they want to remain ministers? Only in UKIP land.
It's amazing. Cameron is "shifty" for honestly answering a direct question on live TV.
Ok so now Merkel, Hollande, Renzi, Rajoy etc. know there is no circumstance under which he would vote for OUT, or permit his cabinet ministers to campaign for it.. what was his negotiating position again ?
He hasn't said there are no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
But Mr Cameron will not countenance leaving the EU and says he would never campaign for an “out” vote in a referendum.
You are quoting the Daily Telegraph's rather lazy summary of what Cameron said in that interview. He did not say there were no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
It sounds pretty explicit to me "he would never campaign for an “out” vote in a referendum", you are in essence asking me to believe your partisan view rather than what was reported contemporaneously in the Telegraph.
Much as I loathe Brand, I reckon he'd come out on top in a skirmish with Balls.
I have to admit a liking for Balls (no jokes please). I don't agree with him on any of his economic positions, would not be particularly happy to see him become CoE but as a person he has unfailingly come over as a decent bloke in every interview and every report I have ever seen on him. I think he is misguided as a politician but think he is the sort of bloke I would happily sit and chat with.
So Cameron is being weak and inept by stating exactly where he stands, his party stands and where his ministers will stand if they want to remain ministers? Only in UKIP land.
It's amazing. Cameron is "shifty" for honestly answering a direct question on live TV.
They are both equally worthless. The deal has to pass ratification in all member states to have any power, and that isn't in Merkel's gift, some of those member states will require referenda as part of their ratification procedures, so its not even in the gift of their elected officials. Merkel could sign all the papers she wants, if the French public decide they dont want us to have it, its dead in the water.
I don't see what the fuss about multi-member ratification is.
You simply make the "IN" option conditional on the treaty being ratified
"We will stay in on these amended terms or we will leave".
Now, admittedly, that could put the ability to kick the UK out of the EU into the hands of another country (I'm not worried about plebiscites, but some countries I think have parliamentary ratification). That said, if they want to kick us out rather than accept a renegotiated settlement then I'm not sure we want to be members anyway.
You think France wouldn;t want to see the back of us ?
Annoying them is probably one of the biggest reasons for staying in. :-)
Of course. But the reality is that there would probably be some cosmetic changes and a revote.
But it's another negotiating chip with Frau Merkel...
('cos she really doesn't want to be left on her own with the French)
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the refeerendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Except that Cameron will lie about the extent to what he's achieved, force all his ministers and aspiring ministers to publicly back his argument,. .
That's their problem. If they would bend to that sort of pressure over their own beliefs, we are well rid of them.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
It sounds pretty explicit to me "he would never campaign for an “out” vote in a referendum", you are in essence asking me to believe your partisan view rather than what was reported contemporaneously in the Telegraph.
It is completely explicit, but it's not supported by the words of his they actually quote. If you can find an interview where there's a direct quote, that would be a different matter. I don't think you'll find one - he has always been consistent in his response to this question.
Happy to be shown to be wrong, of course. I am never partisan in such matters, as you should know.
The problem is why do this now ? He just looks shifty, it's a re-run of cast iron Dave.
Er, because he was asked the direct question on live television.
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
Cabinet responsibility refers to supporting government bills put up to parliament, not to a popular referendum.
This is just Cameron showing his true Europhile credentials. He's going to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation even if all we get is a nice press release.
Just last week Tories on here were arguing that Cameron's renegotiation was credible because people like Gove and Hammond would call him out if he didn't achieve much. Look how long that argument lasted!
Well, if Gove and Hammond feel that strongly that the deal is inadequate, then they can resign from the Government, which in itself, would represent a huge boost to the NO campaign. So what are you moaning about?
Closer to the date, I imagine Cameron will suspend collective responsiblity, but Harold Wilson did not fight the 1974 campaigns on that basis and Cameron is probably holding that card in reserve.
such touching faith.
O ye of none
some of us practice the old time faith and ignore all this happy clappy crappy ;-)
Do you mind not mentioning that subject, especially on a Sunday. It really is just too painful.
We used to have a Rector; a nice enough chap, doctrinally fairly sound if a little low church for my tastes, but we leaned to live with each others foibles and his recycling of sermons. Then he retired.
After a rather long interregnum we now have a Priest in Charge, whose forced jollity and happy clappyness may well lead to the first murder of clergy in the parish since 1326.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
Really? I think you made that up. I've never used that argument, I've merely pointed out that if you want to leave the EU, you need a Tory government to give you the opportunity of the referendum, which is the only possible path to leaving (albeit a longshot, but that's because the Out side seem incapable of, indeed uninterested in, making a case that would withstand the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument).
The problem is why do this now ? He just looks shifty, it's a re-run of cast iron Dave.
Er, because he was asked the direct question on live television.
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
Cabinet responsibility refers to supporting government bills put up to parliament, not to a popular referendum.
This is just Cameron showing his true Europhile credentials. He's going to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation even if all we get is a nice press release.
Just last week Tories on here were arguing that Cameron's renegotiation was credible because people like Gove and Hammond would call him out if he didn't achieve much. Look how long that argument lasted!
Well, if Gove and Hammond feel that strongly that the deal is inadequate, then they can resign from the Government, which in itself, would represent a huge boost to the NO campaign. So what are you moaning about?
Closer to the date, I imagine Cameron will suspend collective responsiblity, but Harold Wilson did not fight the 1974 campaigns on that basis and Cameron is probably holding that card in reserve.
such touching faith.
O ye of none
some of us practice the old time faith and ignore all this happy clappy crappy ;-)
Do you mind not mentioning that subject, especially on a Sunday. It really is just too painful.
We used to have a Rector; a nice enough chap, doctrinally fairly sound if a little low church for my tastes, but we leaned to live with each others foibles and his recycling of sermons. Then he retired.
After a rather long interregnum we now have a Priest in Charge, whose forced jollity and happy clappyness may well lead to the first murder of clergy in the parish since 1326.
Take a leaf from the village of Warleggan where the village priest so upset his parishioners he ended up having to preach his sermons to cardboard cutouts
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the refeerendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Except that Cameron will lie about the extent to what he's achieved, force all his ministers and aspiring ministers to publicly back his argument,. .
That's their problem. If they would bend to that sort of pressure over their own beliefs, we are well rid of them.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
My overpowering dread and terror on perusing this Board is that between now and May you will declare your intention to vote Conservative.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
Really? I think you made that up. I've never used that argument, I've merely pointed out that if you want to leave the EU, you need a Tory government to give you the opportunity of the referendum, which is the only possible path to leaving (albeit a longshot, but that's because the Out side seem incapable of, indeed uninterested in, making a case that would withstand the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument).
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
Really? I think you made that up. I've never used that argument, I've merely pointed out that if you want to leave the EU, you need a Tory government to give you the opportunity of the referendum, which is the only possible path to leaving (albeit a longshot, but that's because the Out side seem incapable of, indeed uninterested in, making a case that would withstand the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument).
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
@Socrates - Ralph Miliband did not make a statement about the English, he wrote an entry in a private diary that was only published after his death. And, of course, he did not disdain British democracy - he defended it.
He served in the Belgian division of the Royal Navy - presumably because at that point he did not know that he was going to make his life in the UK. When he decided that he was, he applied for and received British citizenship. Of course, he was under no obligation to join up at all.
As I understand it, Miliband favours an all-encompassing constitutional convention that would look at the UK's constitutional settlement in its entirety. I do not see that as anti-English. I guess we will just have to disagree.
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
That, I am afraid, is fantasy, or at the very least an incredibly high-risk option. It seems to be post-hoc justification for the bizarre switch which UKIP have made from laying into Cameron for not offering a referndum soon enough, to laying into him for offering it.
Of course there would a realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. Just vote Conservative to get the referendum (that's the easy bit), and then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
I think the biggest issue "Out" faces is that various people who might vote "Out" want different things. For example, while I obviously support no benefits for migrants, I support the widest degree of freedom of movement for labour as possible. If leaving the EU means that greater restrictions on me hiring who I want to hire, then I would have to vote to stay.
On the other hand, if we plan on having a relationship with the EU like Norway, where we are free of much of the legislation and cost, but maintain freedom of labour, goods, services and capital, then I would vote to leave.
You know perfectly well, rcs1000, that having close relations with the EU countries without wanting to be a part of the the EU itself is exactly part of UKIP doctrine.
Mr. Observer, Miliband is keen to rush through extra powers for Scotland and drags his heels on England. If a prolonged discussion is needed for a lasting UK-wide settlement - fine. English votes for English laws is a sensible stopgap measure.
I strongly suspect certain types want to carve England up into rubbish little regions, the better to perpetuate political fiefdoms. For reasons I've outlined various times, this is short-sighted and narrow-minded madness.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
Mr. Observer, Miliband is keen to rush through extra powers for Scotland and drags his heels on England. If a prolonged discussion is needed for a lasting UK-wide settlement - fine. English votes for English laws is a sensible stopgap measure.
I strongly suspect certain types want to carve England up into rubbish little regions, the better to perpetuate political fiefdoms. For reasons I've outlined various times, this is short-sighted and narrow-minded madness.
I think EdM is wrong. But I do not believe that makes him anti-English.
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
That, at least, is one area where I find UKIP to be unfortunately disingenuous. If someone from UKIP does not think it worth voting Conservative in order to get their precious referendum that is one thing, I can understand that. But the frequent argument that a referendum set by the Conservatives would not be worth having (because in essence, and sometimes in as many words, it will be rigged) is just cowardice, pure and simple. UKIP will fight the mainstream media (an odious little phrase but never mind), and the political elite, the people are on their side and are fighting back against the lies, and lack of democratic engagement, and will sweep them aside...but will also apparently fall for Cameron and the msm's lies even though UKIP and other BOOers will be there to tell us if they are lying.
Personally I think regardless of what Cameron said the public would vote BOO. Sure, people do not like change, but most people have little conception of the impact of the EU in everyday and so probably wouldn't fear a change from leaving it. Additionally, even those who want to stay in the EU includes a great many who dislike how it is and if nothing significant is gained could be persuadable, and in any case the BOOers will be a lot more motivated to vote (and unlike the IndyRef I doubt turnout will be high enough to offset that). Even under a Cameron campaigning to stay in I'd think Out would be favourites, but rather than stick with the argument that getting the referendum is not worth voting Tory (an easy argument to defend), too many extend that to some conspiracy nonsense and not trusting the public to understand the truth.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
It is very easy to make a case against that spurious argument. Simply point out that those making the claims said exactly the same thing (actually they quoted 3 million jobs) about us not joining the Euro. They were scare-mongering then and they are scare-mongering now. And the economic arguments for leaving (which I have made on here several times before so am not going to repeat ad infinitum) are very clear.
the frequent argument that a referendum set by the Conservatives would not be worth having (because in essence, and sometimes in as many words, it will be rigged) is just cowardice, pure and simple.
Exactly
Kippers hurl all sorts of abuse at Cameron, how spineless, useless, deceitful, shifty and transparent he is. He is their perfect enemy.
And they are too scared to take him on in a public vote...
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
That, at least, is one area where I find UKIP to be unfortunately disingenuous. If someone from UKIP does not think it worth voting Conservative in order to get their precious referendum that is one thing, I can understand that. But the frequent argument that a referendum set by the Conservatives would not be worth having (because in essence, and sometimes in as many words, it will be rigged) is just cowardice, pure and simple. UKIP will fight the mainstream media (an odious little phrase but never mind), and the political elite, the people are on their side and are fighting back against the lies, and lack of democratic engagement, and will sweep them aside...but will also apparently fall for Cameron and the msm's lies even though UKIP and other BOOers will be there to tell us if they are lying.
I'm very happy to have a referendum set by the Conservatives if it's a clear case of what the renegotiated deal is versus leaving. Yet every Conservative supporter on this site hasn't been willing to bet on the fact we will actually get that. They know as well as I do that the referendum will be held before the renegotiations have been properly finished. As with all the great Cameron achievements in Europe, it will look like a big successful stand until the truth comes out and it all falls apart.
Oh, and it's not that such a referendum wouldn't be worth having. It's just that it wouldn't be worth doing at the expense of UKIP's huge gains being thrown away. Only someone that is completely disingenuous or an idiot claims otherwise.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
T
I'm very happy to have a referendum set by the Conservatives if it's a clear case of what the renegotiated deal is versus leaving. Yet every Conservative supporter on this site hasn't been willing to bet on the fact we will actually get that. They know as well as I do that the referendum will be held before the renegotiations have been properly finished. As with all the great Cameron achievements in Europe, it will look like a big successful stand until the truth comes out and it all falls apart.
Oh, and it's not that such a referendum wouldn't be worth having. It's just that it wouldn't be worth doing at the expense of UKIP's huge gains being thrown away. Only someone that is completely disingenuous or an idiot claims otherwise.
Touche, except many in UKIP argue just that. I made sure to acknowledge that if someone doesn't feel merely getting a referendum is worth voting Tory (that is, not voting UKIP at a GE), then I understood it, precisely because I think that is a valid position to take. But if anyone were to claim that significant numbers do not, in addition to those who argue just as you have, that it's not worth having in those circumstances (with a government campaigning for In) because the LibLabCon and MSM will in effect fix it, they would be at best willfully blind.
I think we should have had a referendum long before now, I want one as soon as possible, and I thought that back when I was leaning toward In, whereas now I am leaning for Out, but there is a substantial strand of people whose arguments against the Tory referendum plan relies on not trusting the British people to make the right choice when they have the opportunity because we will be fooled by MSM and LibLabCon. Given it is easy to construct a much more reasonable argument, as you have done, that makes me think very poorly on those who do not bother to do so, particularly given UKIP as a party profess to trust the average person a lot more than the others, even if some of their supporters do not (though in fairness, among supporters will always be found worse people than in all the parties themselves)
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
"What do we want?"
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
@Socrates - Ralph Miliband did not make a statement about the English, he wrote an entry in a private diary that was only published after his death. And, of course, he did not disdain British democracy - he defended it.
He served in the Belgian division of the Royal Navy - presumably because at that point he did not know that he was going to make his life in the UK. When he decided that he was, he applied for and received British citizenship. Of course, he was under no obligation to join up at all.
As I understand it, Miliband favours an all-encompassing constitutional convention that would look at the UK's constitutional settlement in its entirety. I do not see that as anti-English. I guess we will just have to disagree.
Yes, he conveniently waited until after the war to apply for British citizenship, as doing it earlier would have meant having to fight for the British rather than the Belgians via conscription. He was happy to take the benefits of being British but not the responsibilities, like a lot of immigrants. You're right that he was under no obligation to join up at all, but I'm not denying that he hated Nazi Germany. I'm just claiming he disliked the British.
I guess you've come up with nothing on pro-English statements, then? A lifetime of writing about politics and he said nothing to contradict his earlier anti-English views.
As for your claims that he defended British democracy, he did nothing of the sort. The closest your link comes to that is that he said capitalist democracy was somewhat better than Stalinism. But he still hated "bourgeois democracy" and wanted it to be torn down, possibly by force. I've studied his work and anyone that is even vaguely familiar with his work knows this.
As for Ed Miliband's "constitutional settlement", that's just his method for him backing a "Senate of the Nations and Regions". The "Nations" included being Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, but not England. He has openly argued against any form of EVfEL and an English parliament. It's laughable you're trying to use this to claim he's not anti-English.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
"What do we want?"
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
It's lacking a certain something...
It looks like its lacking the name of the unfunny fucker who tweeted it
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
So it would be a leap into the unknown.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
On the subject of cheerful vicars; have you tried the URC? Our local one is admirably dour and lugubrious.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
"What do we want?"
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
It's lacking a certain something...
Said by a supporter of a party who have actively resisted a referendum in this parliament, and made sure it was scheduled after the point they'll be kicked out of power!
If UKIP were in power now, we'd have a referendum scheduled immediately, as you know full well.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
Well, that is true of course, and it is one of the really big obstacles for the Out side (which is why I said it would be easy for the In side to characterise it as a leap into the dark).
All the same, it would be help the Out side if they agreed amongst themselves a reasonable (and I do stress the word reasonable) position on what realistically the relationship with our EU friends might become. That way they could at least ameliorate the 'leap into the dark' problem. But it's a lot of work to do that, of course, and they'd have to admit that a lot of what they complain about would actually have to remain in place.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
If that old, spurious 'millions of job losses' argument is the best they have then I would stake my house on Out winning. That argument is an insult to the intelligence of the British public and anyone that peddles is it is open to the utmost ridicule.
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
T
Oh, and it's not that such a referendum wouldn't be worth having. It's just that it wouldn't be worth doing at the expense of UKIP's huge gains being thrown away. Only someone that is completely disingenuous or an idiot claims otherwise.
Touche, except many in UKIP argue just that. I made sure to acknowledge that if someone doesn't feel merely getting a referendum is worth voting Tory (that is, not voting UKIP at a GE), then I understood it, precisely because I think that is a valid position to take. But if anyone were to claim that significant numbers do not, in addition to those who argue just as you have, that it's not worth having in those circumstances (with a government campaigning for In) because the LibLabCon and MSM will in effect fix it, they would be at best willfully blind.
I think we should have had a referendum long before now, I want one as soon as possible, and I thought that back when I was leaning toward In, whereas now I am leaning for Out, but there is a substantial strand of people whose arguments against the Tory referendum plan relies on not trusting the British people to make the right choice when they have the opportunity because we will be fooled by MSM and LibLabCon. Given it is easy to construct a much more reasonable argument, as you have done, that makes me think very poorly on those who do not bother to do so, particularly given UKIP as a party profess to trust the average person a lot more than the others, even if some of their supporters do not (though in fairness, among supporters will always be found worse people than in all the parties themselves)
There are Tories on here who say they would vote Labour in a two way UKIP/Labour marginal even though it would mean Ed Miliband was more likely to be PM than David Cameron, so it seems to be a universal trait
I am sure Richard Nabavi would be utterly bewildered
The trouble is that the people (potential UKIP voters) being asked to vote for Cameron to get a referendum are mainly ex Labourites who would never vote Tory, ex Tories who only left because they feel let down by Cameron, or ex Lib Dem/protest voters who want to stick two fingers up... so it's not going to happen
Next best option, and the most realistic is for them t vote UKIP and hope they get enough seats/votes to influence the government, whoever it may be
Personally I think regardless of what Cameron said the public would vote BOO. Sure, people do not like change, but most people have little conception of the impact of the EU in everyday and so probably wouldn't fear a change from leaving it. Additionally, even those who want to stay in the EU includes a great many who dislike how it is and if nothing significant is gained could be persuadable
Nothing is ever good enough for people of a certain mindset.
Remember all the arguments about "why renegotiate, let's just vote now!"?
Clearly you have to renegotiate those who (like myself) are frustrated with the EU, but see it's potential. I suspect if there is no material change then I will reluctantly vote 'no' - in that we will have tried to reform and have proven it to be an impossible task.
Then good luck to them, and we'll be happy to help when it all falls apart.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
"What do we want?"
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
It's lacking a certain something...
Said by a supporter of a party who have actively resisted a referendum in this parliament, and made sure it was scheduled after the point they'll be kicked out of power!
.
Well, in their defence, while that is what has happened and they did delay, I'm sure they thought they'd have a better chance of still being in power in 2017 than is actually the case.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
Well, that is true of course, and it is one of the really big obstacles for the Out side (which is why I said it would be easy for the In side to characterise it as a leap into the dark).
All the same, it would be help the Out side if they agreed amongst themselves a reasonable (and I do stress the word reasonable) position on what realistically the relationship with our EU friends might become. That way they could at least ameliorate the 'leap into the dark' problem. But it's a lot of work to do that, of course, and they'd have to admit that a lot of what they complain about would actually have to remain in place.
How is this a weakness for Out side when the In side can't agree amongst themselves on what our relationship with our EU friends would be inside the behemoth? Heck, even Cameron can't agree with himself what it is. Can you even describe your preferred position of what you think we should and should not repatriate? I've yet to hear it.
If that old, spurious 'millions of job losses' argument is the best they have then I would stake my house on Out winning. That argument is an insult to the intelligence of the British public and anyone that peddles is it is open to the utmost ridicule.
Fair enough, vote Tory and you'll get what you want. I can categorically assure you, with absolutely zero risk of being wrong, that the Stay In side will indeed peddle that argument. Ad nauseam. It will comprise virtually the whole of their campaign.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
"What do we want?"
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
It's lacking a certain something...
Very witty, Mr. P.. However, I hoped in my post to try and make a non-party political point. The terms of leaving the EU and hence the relationship a country has with it afterwards are under the Lisbon Treaty to be negotiated only after a country has given notice of its intention to leave (see Article 50 for details).
Therefore, when someone says the Out side must say what exactly the situation will be before the referendum they know they are asking for the impossible. Just about whatever anyone on the out says says they can say, "Aha, but you don't know that. It will be subject to negotiation".
As it happens I don't think that need matter too much and the argument for Better Off Out can be won, but not by kow-towing to the terms of debate that the In side seem to be wanting to impose.
Can someone give me a coherent reason (not a political one) why we couldn't have held an EU referendum in 2014 or early 2015? A serious question as the HoC hasl been treading water for the last year
Cameron is not promising jam tomorrow, he's been promising jam in three or four years time. They could have had the arguments completed by now.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
So it would be a leap into the unknown.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
Maybe, but fewer people have any conception of what the impact of us being in the EU really is, the arguments are even more abstract and open to being contested than anything the No side could say in the IndyRef, with almost none of the residual affection for the thing we're being asked to leave. The In side for the EU referendum will have to rely even more on technical arguments than emotional ones, and with that lack of investment in the topic I suspect a lack of clear plan from the BOOers will be less of an obstacle. We shall see. Or would, if hypothetically we get the chance.
There's no realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. The parliament after next, however, has a substantial chance of it happening, and that chance is maximised by voting for UKIP this year.
then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
T
Oh, and it's not that such a referendum wouldn't be worth having. It's just that it wouldn't be worth doing at the expense of UKIP's huge gains being thrown away. Only someone that is completely disingenuous or an idiot claims otherwise.
Touche, except many in UKIP argue just that. I made sure to acknowledge that if someone doesn't feel merely getting a referendum is worth voting Tory (that is, not voting UKIP at a GE), then I understood it, precisely because I think that is a valid position to take. But if anyone were to claim that significant numbers do not, in addition to those who argue just as you have, that it's not worth having in those circumstances (with a government campaigning for In) because the LibLabCon and MSM will in effect fix it, they would be at best willfully blind.
I think we should have had a referendum long before now, I want one as soon as possible, and I thought that back when I was leaning toward In, whereas now I am leaning for Out, but there is a substantial strand of people whose arguments against the Tory referendum plan relies on not trusting the British people to make the right choice when they have the opportunity because we will be fooled by MSM and LibLabCon. Given it is easy to construct a much more reasonable argument, as you have done, that makes me think very poorly on those who do not bother to do so, particularly given UKIP as a party profess to trust the average person a lot more than the others, even if some of their supporters do not (though in fairness, among supporters will always be found worse people than in all the parties themselves)
There are Tories on here who say they would vote Labour in a two way UKIP/Labour marginal even though it would mean Ed Miliband was more likely to be PM than David Cameron, so it seems to be a universal trait
Oh I wouldn't dispute that. This is just one of the issues where the behaviour flares up for UKIP is all, if not universally among their support of course.
I think we should have had a referendum long before now, I want one as soon as possible, and I thought that back when I was leaning toward In, whereas now I am leaning for Out, but there is a substantial strand of people whose arguments against the Tory referendum plan relies on not trusting the British people to make the right choice when they have the opportunity because we will be fooled by MSM and LibLabCon. Given it is easy to construct a much more reasonable argument, as you have done, that makes me think very poorly on those who do not bother to do so, particularly given UKIP as a party profess to trust the average person a lot more than the others, even if some of their supporters do not (though in fairness, among supporters will always be found worse people than in all the parties themselves)
The point is that we do not fear a referendum where both sides of the argument are set out in an honest fashion. An argument based on the EU as it is or is planned to be without reform is very easy to win.
What we do fear - and it is not cowardice but a recognition that we are not suicidal - is a referendum where Cameron states clearly that we have obtained massive concessions, in effect admitting that our arguments against EU membership as it currently stands are correct, but in fact is fully aware that the concessions are unenforceable and are almost certain to come to nothing as they will be voted down by other countries after he has won a referendum for us to stay in.
I have said before that (unlike some of my UKIP compatriots) I would be much happier if Camron were to admit that the timetable he has set is unrealistic for getting enforceable change to the EU and that instead he was postponing the referendum until the end of the next Parliament and that he would only recommend a vote to stay in if he had obtained a ratified treaty change which he could commend to the country. As it stands his whole approach is based upon a lie as he must already know he can get nothing that can be guaranteed by the time of the planned referendum in 2017.
I will also make a prediction. If Cameron gets reelected and wins his referendum, then the deal he will have presented to the country will bear no resemblance to what the actual 'reformed' EU will look like by (say) 2020. In fact the actual EU will look very much like what they Europhiles have been hoping for for decades since the nullifying of the British objections will allow ever closer union to proceed at an accelerated pace.
If that old, spurious 'millions of job losses' argument is the best they have then I would stake my house on Out winning. That argument is an insult to the intelligence of the British public and anyone that peddles is it is open to the utmost ridicule.
Fair enough, vote Tory and you'll get what you want. I can categorically assure you, with absolutely zero risk of being wrong, that the Stay In side will indeed peddle that argument. Ad nauseam. It will comprise virtually the whole of their campaign.
Of course it will be. They'll have to rely on lies because the actual economic argument - "the incremental gains of single market membership over an FTA with Europe is worth more than a whole bunch of FTAs with economically successful powers" - doesn't hold any weight. Especially as Europe falls further and further behind.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
It is very easy to make a case against that spurious argument. Simply point out that those making the claims said exactly the same thing (actually they quoted 3 million jobs) about us not joining the Euro. They were scare-mongering then and they are scare-mongering now. And the economic arguments for leaving (which I have made on here several times before so am not going to repeat ad infinitum) are very clear.
Mr Nabavi is in fact being very generous to you and your lack of arguments. You make a very good case but only for exposing the lack of argument about leaving the EU. All you can say is 'scaremongering'. Wishful thinking is not an economic argument.
The point at the heart of leaving the EU is that to resolve the economic arguments you have to join the EEA which admits that the EU is going to continue to exist and we have to deal with it. The EEA is effectively no different to being in the EU. Any trade deal with the EU is no different to being in. Once out we cannot offer any influence with the EU all there is on offer is disputes.
The one clear thing that increasingly drives the anti EU argument that comes through loud and clear is crass nationalism of the worst kind.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
So it would be a leap into the unknown.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
Maybe, but fewer people have any conception of what the impact of us being in the EU really is, the arguments are even more abstract and open to being contested than anything the No side could say in the IndyRef, with almost none of the residual affection for the thing we're being asked to leave. The In side for the EU referendum will have to rely even more on technical arguments than emotional ones, and with that lack of investment in the topic I suspect a lack of clear plan from the BOOers will be less of an obstacle. We shall see. Or would, if hypothetically we get the chance.
It is easiest to envisage, and be content with, the status quo. That is why the onus is on the side arguing for change, the BOOers.
How is this a weakness for Out side when the In side can't agree amongst themselves on what our relationship with our EU friends would be inside the behemoth? Heck, even Cameron can't agree with himself what it is. Can you even describe your preferred position of what you think we should and should not repatriate? I've yet to hear it.
Sigh.. those arguing for the status quo don't need to make any case. They just need to sow uncertainty and doubt about leaving. How difficult is that to understand?
As for my views, you seem to have fallen into the trap I mentioned below, of not being able to distinguish between my views, and what I'm saying the Stay In side will campaign on. But, since you ask, my position is of course that I wouldn't have started from here - Labour screwed things up badly in signing up to Lisbon for nothing in return, and without the necessary protections for Britain's interests. However, we do start from here, so we have to consider what might be realistically attainable. My first priority (and my red line which would probablky decide if I vote In or Out) would be protection for the City from the depradations of the Commission, and even more importantly the European Parliament, large chunks of which are actively hostile to it. We could also reasonably hope to opt out of the Social Chapter, which covers matters completely irrelevant to the Single Market and which should be decided by the UK parliament. We also need protection from the Eurozone gangingnup against us, as they strengthen the unification of their economies and governance (as they undoubtedly need to do, if the Euro is to survive).
I'm not overly fussed about EU immigration, because I don't think leaving would make any difference (we'd immediately opt back into the free movement of labour as part of any trade treaty), but progress on benefit for EU immigrants can certainly be made - in fact I this is pretty much inevitable.
Then there is the whole tricky question of 'ever-closer union'. Maybe that one is already beginning to be won, though.
The point is that we do not fear a referendum where both sides of the argument are set out in an honest fashion. An argument based on the EU as it is or is planned to be without reform is very easy to win.
What we do fear - and it is not cowardice but a recognition that we are not suicidal - is a referendum where Cameron states clearly that we have obtained massive concessions, in effect admitting that our arguments against EU membership as it currently stands are correct, but in fact is fully aware that the concessions are unenforceable and are almost certain to come to nothing as they will be voted down by other countries after he has won a referendum for us to stay in.
That doesn't wash for me. When Cameron makes that sort of claim, and I agree he will claim a substantial victory when nothing of the kind has happened, UKIP can point that out. If you fear a politician misleading the public you are saying that you think the public will be taken in by him and vote to stay In even with people like UKIP pointing it out. I on the other hand think people won't be taken in by it when not only UKIP but many others will point that out, aided by the fact that even though business and much of the media are on the In side, most people do not like the EU and will be very willing the believe the worst.
Edit: Additionally, in what universe do competing sides in a referendum or election reliably make their arguments such that their opposition do not claim that the issues have been misrepresented in some fashion? When we finally get this damn referendum, whoever it is under, but hopefully soon either way, I am very sure both sides will argue the other side is not being wholly honest about something. Waiting for that to happen is fruitless, instead we rely on allowing all sides to put forth their own arguments and to point out where their opponents are being less than honest.
When Cameron misrepresents what he 'wins' from Europe, you are acting as though he will do so in a vacuum, but the second he does, and in fact well before he even makes the claim, there will be plenty to challenge him. In that scenario, what is there to fear from a referendum even if he is the one who called it? Given the choice he would not have one at all, so by that point the issue is out of his hands anyway.
Any trade deal with the EU is no different to being in.
Your whole argument is based on this, despite the fact it is manifestly and demonstrably untrue. The EU has trade deals with Mexico, Korea and, very shortly, Canada, without any free movement and without any changes in powers except in the case of bilateral agreement.
Comments
You simply make the "IN" option conditional on the treaty being ratified
"We will stay in on these amended terms or we will leave".
Now, admittedly, that could put the ability to kick the UK out of the EU into the hands of another country (I'm not worried about plebiscites, but some countries I think have parliamentary ratification). That said, if they want to kick us out rather than accept a renegotiated settlement then I'm not sure we want to be members anyway.
Ah well MIlliband it is then the great saviour.
I'm not sure what's a worse argument: that one, or your follow-up that, when it comes to the EU, Cameron and the Tories are just like Wilson and Labour.
Even if he had, so what? It won't be David Cameron that our EU friends need to convince. One of the great mysteries of the UKIP/BOO position in one breath they tell us that the British people are fed up with the EU and would like to leave, if only those pesky Westinster politicians would give them the chance, in the next breath they tell us that David Cameon is hopeless at politics and no-one trusts him, and then they get all het up because they don't think they'll have David Cameron on their side in the referendum. On the last point they are probably right, but their own logic would lead to the conclusion that that should be an advantage for the Out side.
Annoying them is probably one of the biggest reasons for staying in. :-)
As far as I'm aware, the only person saying Cameron is hopeless at politics is SeanT, an admitted eurofederalist. Most of us eurosceptics think Cameron is reasonable at politics, just crap at diplomacy and lacking in principle.
What will be the most significant thing/bauble that the PM will be able to negotiate with the EU members?
Lets see this is a 3 part contingency bet:
1) Dave wins the election (Con most seats) Evens (50% chance)
2) Boris is elected as an MP ( ~99% chance ?)
3) Bojo becomes next Con leader (5-2)
I guess if you believe all that then 6-1 is a fair price.
But Hills "win" because the stake is locked up for quite a while...
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Mr. Dawning, a three line whip on EU membership in a referendum would only accentuate the differences within the party. Cameron can want a unified front bench on the matter in the same way I can want the Swedish Nymphomaniac Association tour bus to break down outside my house.
With backstage passes for the after show party...
You need to have some empathy here. What is it that Remzi, etc. want? Do they want the UK in the EU? Is the EU without Britain worse for them? Are there reforms they personally want? What is acceptable to their own electorates?
And they are all aware of the political situation in the UK. They know David Cameron's support on its own may not be enough. They know that support for membership is on a knife-edge, and - if they wish the EU to continue with the UK in it, then they will be keen to help.
Like it or not, the compromises the UK seek have to work for all the members of the EU. Their leaders and people deserve a say in the running of the golf club (EU) the same way ours do. Otherwise - on way or another - it will cease to exist sooner rather than later.
You only want a referendum that's rigged in favour of the EU. No wonder you're a Cameroon.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
Machiavelli stated 4-6 was the maximum number for a workable confederacy, I think.
What other ctiteria can we use?
I suggest liberal and illiberal (small 'L' of course).
I see Labour, UKIP, SNP and the Greens as illiberal whilst
Conservative and Lib Dems as liberal.
Any thoughts?
Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
In practice there will be an Out campaign run (amongst Tory MPs) by someone like Owen Paterson. Whoever leads that campaign would become PM if the public vote to leave.
On the other hand, if we plan on having a relationship with the EU like Norway, where we are free of much of the legislation and cost, but maintain freedom of labour, goods, services and capital, then I would vote to leave.
The tory position is crystal. Funnily enough it is not the same as UKIP. So people have a choice. Cameron's position is the agreed tory position. Negotiate for a better settlement and then fight for it. And give the UK public the final say.
Or if they cannot make up their minds or just don't care they can always pretend that Labour agree with them. After all, anything is possible.
Brand on the other hand is a stuck up arse.
Not sure the Cons or even the LDs are all that liberal in some ways though, sadly. I'd be very interested if people can come up with a better classification than what we have though.
You're right that opposing English devolution on its own doesn't make you anti-English. But opposing it while backing even greater devolution for other home nations sure as hell does. And Miliband doesn't just oppose the Tory plans for EV4EL. He opposes any version. He wants Scots and Welsh MPs to vote on English matters with absolutely no reciprocity the other way. That's anti-English.
What does that make Nige?
You are quoting the Daily Telegraph's rather lazy summary of what Cameron said in that interview. He did not say there were no circumstances in which he would vote for Out.
It sounds pretty explicit to me "he would never campaign for an “out” vote in a referendum", you are in essence asking me to believe your partisan view rather than what was reported contemporaneously in the Telegraph.
Maybe not.
Who's next?
But it's another negotiating chip with Frau Merkel...
('cos she really doesn't want to be left on her own with the French)
Happy to be shown to be wrong, of course. I am never partisan in such matters, as you should know.
We used to have a Rector; a nice enough chap, doctrinally fairly sound if a little low church for my tastes, but we leaned to live with each others foibles and his recycling of sermons. Then he retired.
After a rather long interregnum we now have a Priest in Charge, whose forced jollity and happy clappyness may well lead to the first murder of clergy in the parish since 1326.
Forced happiness is bloody tedious.
http://www.haunted-britain.com/warleggan.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-distorted-book-ralph-miliband
He served in the Belgian division of the Royal Navy - presumably because at that point he did not know that he was going to make his life in the UK. When he decided that he was, he applied for and received British citizenship. Of course, he was under no obligation to join up at all.
As I understand it, Miliband favours an all-encompassing constitutional convention that would look at the UK's constitutional settlement in its entirety. I do not see that as anti-English. I guess we will just have to disagree.
Of course there would a realistic path to leaving the EU in the next parliament. Just vote Conservative to get the referendum (that's the easy bit), and then actually persuade the public to vote to leave (that's the hard bit).
I strongly suspect certain types want to carve England up into rubbish little regions, the better to perpetuate political fiefdoms. For reasons I've outlined various times, this is short-sighted and narrow-minded madness.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
Personally I think regardless of what Cameron said the public would vote BOO. Sure, people do not like change, but most people have little conception of the impact of the EU in everyday and so probably wouldn't fear a change from leaving it. Additionally, even those who want to stay in the EU includes a great many who dislike how it is and if nothing significant is gained could be persuadable, and in any case the BOOers will be a lot more motivated to vote (and unlike the IndyRef I doubt turnout will be high enough to offset that). Even under a Cameron campaigning to stay in I'd think Out would be favourites, but rather than stick with the argument that getting the referendum is not worth voting Tory (an easy argument to defend), too many extend that to some conspiracy nonsense and not trusting the public to understand the truth.
Kippers hurl all sorts of abuse at Cameron, how spineless, useless, deceitful, shifty and transparent he is. He is their perfect enemy.
And they are too scared to take him on in a public vote...
Oh, and it's not that such a referendum wouldn't be worth having. It's just that it wouldn't be worth doing at the expense of UKIP's huge gains being thrown away. Only someone that is completely disingenuous or an idiot claims otherwise.
I think we should have had a referendum long before now, I want one as soon as possible, and I thought that back when I was leaning toward In, whereas now I am leaning for Out, but there is a substantial strand of people whose arguments against the Tory referendum plan relies on not trusting the British people to make the right choice when they have the opportunity because we will be fooled by MSM and LibLabCon. Given it is easy to construct a much more reasonable argument, as you have done, that makes me think very poorly on those who do not bother to do so, particularly given UKIP as a party profess to trust the average person a lot more than the others, even if some of their supporters do not (though in fairness, among supporters will always be found worse people than in all the parties themselves)
"We don't know!"
"When do we want it?"
"In an ideal World in the Parliament after next..."
It's lacking a certain something...
I guess you've come up with nothing on pro-English statements, then? A lifetime of writing about politics and he said nothing to contradict his earlier anti-English views.
As for your claims that he defended British democracy, he did nothing of the sort. The closest your link comes to that is that he said capitalist democracy was somewhat better than Stalinism. But he still hated "bourgeois democracy" and wanted it to be torn down, possibly by force. I've studied his work and anyone that is even vaguely familiar with his work knows this.
As for Ed Miliband's "constitutional settlement", that's just his method for him backing a "Senate of the Nations and Regions". The "Nations" included being Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, but not England. He has openly argued against any form of EVfEL and an English parliament. It's laughable you're trying to use this to claim he's not anti-English.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
On the subject of cheerful vicars; have you tried the URC? Our local one is admirably dour and lugubrious.
If UKIP were in power now, we'd have a referendum scheduled immediately, as you know full well.
All the same, it would be help the Out side if they agreed amongst themselves a reasonable (and I do stress the word reasonable) position on what realistically the relationship with our EU friends might become. That way they could at least ameliorate the 'leap into the dark' problem. But it's a lot of work to do that, of course, and they'd have to admit that a lot of what they complain about would actually have to remain in place.
I am sure Richard Nabavi would be utterly bewildered
The trouble is that the people (potential UKIP voters) being asked to vote for Cameron to get a referendum are mainly ex Labourites who would never vote Tory, ex Tories who only left because they feel let down by Cameron, or ex Lib Dem/protest voters who want to stick two fingers up... so it's not going to happen
Next best option, and the most realistic is for them t vote UKIP and hope they get enough seats/votes to influence the government, whoever it may be
Remember all the arguments about "why renegotiate, let's just vote now!"?
Clearly you have to renegotiate those who (like myself) are frustrated with the EU, but see it's potential. I suspect if there is no material change then I will reluctantly vote 'no' - in that we will have tried to reform and have proven it to be an impossible task.
Then good luck to them, and we'll be happy to help when it all falls apart.
Therefore, when someone says the Out side must say what exactly the situation will be before the referendum they know they are asking for the impossible. Just about whatever anyone on the out says says they can say, "Aha, but you don't know that. It will be subject to negotiation".
As it happens I don't think that need matter too much and the argument for Better Off Out can be won, but not by kow-towing to the terms of debate that the In side seem to be wanting to impose.
Can someone give me a coherent reason (not a political one) why we couldn't have held an EU referendum in 2014 or early 2015? A serious question as the HoC hasl been treading water for the last year
Cameron is not promising jam tomorrow, he's been promising jam in three or four years time. They could have had the arguments completed by now.
If Kipper votes deliver Ed (the most Europhile candidate on offer) will they be chanting "it was the best option" when he signs up to the Euro?
What we do fear - and it is not cowardice but a recognition that we are not suicidal - is a referendum where Cameron states clearly that we have obtained massive concessions, in effect admitting that our arguments against EU membership as it currently stands are correct, but in fact is fully aware that the concessions are unenforceable and are almost certain to come to nothing as they will be voted down by other countries after he has won a referendum for us to stay in.
I have said before that (unlike some of my UKIP compatriots) I would be much happier if Camron were to admit that the timetable he has set is unrealistic for getting enforceable change to the EU and that instead he was postponing the referendum until the end of the next Parliament and that he would only recommend a vote to stay in if he had obtained a ratified treaty change which he could commend to the country. As it stands his whole approach is based upon a lie as he must already know he can get nothing that can be guaranteed by the time of the planned referendum in 2017.
I will also make a prediction. If Cameron gets reelected and wins his referendum, then the deal he will have presented to the country will bear no resemblance to what the actual 'reformed' EU will look like by (say) 2020. In fact the actual EU will look very much like what they Europhiles have been hoping for for decades since the nullifying of the British objections will allow ever closer union to proceed at an accelerated pace.
The point at the heart of leaving the EU is that to resolve the economic arguments you have to join the EEA which admits that the EU is going to continue to exist and we have to deal with it. The EEA is effectively no different to being in the EU. Any trade deal with the EU is no different to being in. Once out we cannot offer any influence with the EU all there is on offer is disputes.
The one clear thing that increasingly drives the anti EU argument that comes through loud and clear is crass nationalism of the worst kind.
As for my views, you seem to have fallen into the trap I mentioned below, of not being able to distinguish between my views, and what I'm saying the Stay In side will campaign on. But, since you ask, my position is of course that I wouldn't have started from here - Labour screwed things up badly in signing up to Lisbon for nothing in return, and without the necessary protections for Britain's interests. However, we do start from here, so we have to consider what might be realistically attainable. My first priority (and my red line which would probablky decide if I vote In or Out) would be protection for the City from the depradations of the Commission, and even more importantly the European Parliament, large chunks of which are actively hostile to it. We could also reasonably hope to opt out of the Social Chapter, which covers matters completely irrelevant to the Single Market and which should be decided by the UK parliament. We also need protection from the Eurozone gangingnup against us, as they strengthen the unification of their economies and governance (as they undoubtedly need to do, if the Euro is to survive).
I'm not overly fussed about EU immigration, because I don't think leaving would make any difference (we'd immediately opt back into the free movement of labour as part of any trade treaty), but progress on benefit for EU immigrants can certainly be made - in fact I this is pretty much inevitable.
Then there is the whole tricky question of 'ever-closer union'. Maybe that one is already beginning to be won, though.
Edit: Additionally, in what universe do competing sides in a referendum or election reliably make their arguments such that their opposition do not claim that the issues have been misrepresented in some fashion? When we finally get this damn referendum, whoever it is under, but hopefully soon either way, I am very sure both sides will argue the other side is not being wholly honest about something. Waiting for that to happen is fruitless, instead we rely on allowing all sides to put forth their own arguments and to point out where their opponents are being less than honest.
When Cameron misrepresents what he 'wins' from Europe, you are acting as though he will do so in a vacuum, but the second he does, and in fact well before he even makes the claim, there will be plenty to challenge him. In that scenario, what is there to fear from a referendum even if he is the one who called it? Given the choice he would not have one at all, so by that point the issue is out of his hands anyway.