If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
OMG Will somebody give Socrates £50 before we all die with the excruciating boredom of his repetitive rambling!
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
Indeed. It's not as if "Scotland" isn't made up of 59 constituencies, is it?
Regional variations will be interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how well antifrank's Yes% method stacks up. Very well, I suspect, hence betting on Glasgow.
Basically unless the Ashcroft poll is good for Labour, its as you were isn't it?
If it shows the SNP hosing up, well we knew that anyway, and if bookies massively react to that, we could get value opposing the SNP
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
If you don't believe in Ashcroft you should have the house down on the Conservatives in Sutton & Cheam.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
The speed from which he went from "the renegotiation will have happened and be presented to voters" to "no-one is claiming the renegotiation will have been completed before it is presented to voters" was particularly impressive.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
If you are right, Cameron and Osborne must believe that as things stand the UK should leave the EU and that only a renegotiation changes this. Given that, surely they should be able to tell us what it is they believe needs to change in order for them to support our continued membership.
If he explained all that in advance, there wouldn't be much of a "negotiation".
If you are right, Cameron and Osborne must believe that as things stand the UK should leave the EU and that only a renegotiation changes this. Given that, surely they should be able to tell us what it is they believe needs to change in order for them to support our continued membership.
It's perfectly consistent (indeed very sensible) to argue that it's in Britain's interests to remain in the EU but that the EU has faults which need to be addressed.
As for what he believes needs to be changed, David Cameron has of course laid out his position very clearly and cogently:
@OzKaterji · 6m 6 minutes ago Islamic State have released a new video called "Healing of the Chest" showing Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kassasbeh being burned alive.
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
Indeed. It's not as if "Scotland" isn't made up of 59 constituencies, is it?
Regional variations will be interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how well antifrank's Yes% method stacks up. Very well, I suspect, hence betting on Glasgow.
Basically unless the Ashcroft poll is good for Labour, its as you were isn't it?
If it shows the SNP hosing up, well we knew that anyway, and if bookies massively react to that, we could get value opposing the SNP
But there's a world of difference between hosing up with 52 and hosing up with 37. We might also get some useful constituency betting pointers in the non-SNP(?) Border seats.
It's strange that more political analysts/newspapers aren't talking about this as it's exactly what the projected sporting index bands and forecasts are showing is going to happen three months before a general election.
Con + LD + DUP doesn't add up to a majority and if things move further towards the SNP after tomorrow then Labour will be looking at 270 seats rather than 280, not enough to run a minority government.
There should be panic but everyone seems happy for it to play out.
Yes, it's extraordinary. The financial markets are beginning to wake up to the danger but only to a very limited extent so far.
My betting strategy in anticipation of tomorrow. Try and find anyone willing to offer me odds on Lord Ashcroft saying tomorrow his polls are a snapshot and not a prediction.
Unfortunately I've not found anyone willing to offer odds.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
OMG Will somebody give Socrates £50 before we all die with the excruciating boredom of his repetitive rambling!
Maybe someone should bet him £50 that he'll mention the referendum again before the election.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
If you are right, Cameron and Osborne must believe that as things stand the UK should leave the EU and that only a renegotiation changes this. Given that, surely they should be able to tell us what it is they believe needs to change in order for them to support our continued membership.
If he explained all that in advance, there wouldn't be much of a "negotiation".
I agree that Cameron shouldn't spell out his red lines. But he could at least spell out his initial demands.
And Cameron supporters on here should definitely be able to spell out what their red lines would be. They are remarkably silent on that, because their red lines will only be defined when the renegotiation is completed, lest Cameron fails to meet them.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
The speed from which he went from "the renegotiation will have happened and be presented to voters" to "no-one is claiming the renegotiation will have been completed before it is presented to voters" was particularly impressive.
Its easy Socrates - he needs to get enough to win the referendum - it won't be enough for you but then nothing much would. However the majority of the Uk will be happy with that outcome.
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
Indeed. It's not as if "Scotland" isn't made up of 59 constituencies, is it?
Regional variations will be interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how well antifrank's Yes% method stacks up. Very well, I suspect, hence betting on Glasgow.
Basically unless the Ashcroft poll is good for Labour, its as you were isn't it?
If it shows the SNP hosing up, well we knew that anyway, and if bookies massively react to that, we could get value opposing the SNP
But there's a world of difference between hosing up with 52 and hosing up with 37. We might also get some useful constituency betting pointers in the non-SNP(?) Border seats.
Hmmm unless I am giving bookmakers to much credit for professionalism, there wont be any markets to bet on anyway
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
So we vote to stay in and then the changes get rejected? That sounds like exactly the sort of stitch-up Cameron is aiming for. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate. If it's a UK powers-specific deal then it probably wouldn't trigger a referendum elsewhere.
Surely the solution would be to have an AV referendum:
1. Stay in whatever 2. Stay in if the treaty changes are ratified by other members of the EU 3. Leave whatever
I don't think we can ask the other members of the EU to ratify treaty changes that might become moot by our leaving.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
OMG Will somebody give Socrates £50 before we all die with the excruciating boredom of his repetitive rambling!
Maybe someone should bet him £50 that he'll mention the referendum again before the election.
Conservatives getting sensitive because I've hit a nerve in exposing the obvious dishonesty of their party's position.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
No, there is only one person I have previously barred from engaging with, namely yourself.
Life is too short to debate with people who call me dishonest.
It's strange that more political analysts/newspapers aren't talking about this as it's exactly what the projected sporting index bands and forecasts are showing is going to happen three months before a general election.
Con + LD + DUP doesn't add up to a majority and if things move further towards the SNP after tomorrow then Labour will be looking at 270 seats rather than 280, not enough to run a minority government.
There should be panic but everyone seems happy for it to play out.
Yes, it's extraordinary. The financial markets are beginning to wake up to the danger but only to a very limited extent so far.
More to the point - if Westminster voting in Scotland becomes forever only about electing the SNP to screw ever more out of the English, well then they have won the war. The UK will not survive long unless we go fully federal and cancel Barnett. It's not Labour that's dying in Scotland now so much as the Union itself.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
Eh? Sorry, look at your words: they're meaningless. Even Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to remain in a reformed EU. Everyone's also in a favour of a reformed Britain. The difference is the substance behind the slogans.
But what is that reform? If the EU parliament didn't shuttle to Brussels every month, that'd be a 'reformed' EU. If we ceased to apply an EU directive to the compilation of tractor stats that'd be a 'reformed' EU. If we managed to get the 'Ever Closer Union' clause struck out from our treaty obligations, no doubt that'dbe a 'reformed' EU.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And you know as well as I do that that's absolutely not on the cards.
Alex Massie"I wouldn’t dare to be so uncouth as to suggest [Scottish] Labour are fucked but they’re hardly unfucked either." While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit. .......
Dear Stodge, Alex Massie is a supporter of the Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy.
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
If you don't believe in Ashcroft you should have the house down on the Conservatives in Sutton & Cheam.
I don't know, does that follow? I'm sort of at the position of treating his constituency and regional polls a bit like one of Lawro's guests.
Whilst Mike is big on the idea that we don't vote for PM or national parties, a position that's partly right and mostly wrong, I think we disregard the established national pollsters at our peril. That's from a betting POV regardless of what they show for my team.
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
I'm more worried by the distorting effects of some pollsters doing daily, twice-weekly or weekly opinion polls and others only monthly.
Back when all pollsters did one poll a month, maybe two or three if they were lucky to have contracts with more than one newspaper, they would be given equal weight. Now there is a large contrast between the daily YouGov polls at one extreme, and monthly ICM polls at the other. The more frequent polls dominate people's perceptions of how well the different parties are doing.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
I only bet for fun and I suspect you wouldn't be much fun to bet with.
In fact is there a single Cameron supporter on here who is willing to state what is needed to be renegotiated for the renegotiation to be a failure if it isn't achieved?
I am with Dan Hannon who expects little of substance. Then we have a referendum and then we vote to leave.
But, this only happens IF we get a Conservative Govt.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
So we vote to stay in and then the changes get rejected? That sounds like exactly the sort of stitch-up Cameron is aiming for. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate. If it's a UK powers-specific deal then it probably wouldn't trigger a referendum elsewhere.
Surely the solution would be to have an AV referendum:
1. Stay in whatever 2. Stay in if the treaty changes are ratified by other members of the EU 3. Leave whatever
I don't think we can ask the other members of the EU to ratify treaty changes that might become moot by our leaving.
Of course we can. It is pretty obvious that if we were to leave there would have to be new treaties anyway for the remaining members so I really don't see the issue. Besides, any promises made without treaty change are frankly worthless as we have seen far too often over the last couple of decades.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
No, there is only one person I have previously barred from engaging with, namely yourself.
Life is too short to debate with people who call me dishonest.
I didn't say you were dishonest. I said you were less intellectually honest than me. I'm happy to retract that claim if you state simply what is the minimum that needs to be achieved in renegotiation for the renegotiation to otherwise be a failure.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters. .....
By contrast, the negotiation the Out side would have to undertake won't have started at all. It would be a complete leap into the dark, and the EU will no doubt be muttering darkly about how dreadful the terms would be. Worse still, different Kippers seem to want to jump in different directions, and none of them seem to have the faintest clue as to what they are even aiming at in the trade treaty.
You'd have thought that the less dim-witted Kippers might have begun to think about this problem, but there's precious little sign of that.
Correct. The EU is not going to go away, we have to deal with it somehow. The only country in the world that would actually like the EU to go away is Putin's Russia. That should tell you something about UKIP and their friend Putin.We might be actually better in the EEA. The EU might well become much more closer integrated Eurozone and we, in or out of that might well be de facto just in the EEA. But that will not mean much difference to now. Any relationship with the EU will be similar to now. Thats why voting to give power to a Europhile anti referendum Labour Party is insane. If we do not want a relationship with the EU and want to tow the UK (well England) away from everyone else then the mad insane kippers should be honest and say so. But the real truth is that kippers are the biggest liars of the lot.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
No, there is only one person I have previously barred from engaging with, namely yourself.
Life is too short to debate with people who call me dishonest.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
The speed from which he went from "the renegotiation will have happened and be presented to voters" to "no-one is claiming the renegotiation will have been completed before it is presented to voters" was particularly impressive.
Its easy Socrates - he needs to get enough to win the referendum - it won't be enough for you but then nothing much would. However the majority of the Uk will be happy with that outcome.
Democracy sucks eh ?
Another one revelling in the intellectual dishonesty of the Tory leadership over the EU. Not really a surprise no one trusts them.
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
If you don't believe in Ashcroft you should have the house down on the Conservatives in Sutton & Cheam.
I don't know, does that follow? I'm sort of at the position of treating his constituency and regional polls a bit like one of Lawro's guests.
Whilst Mike is big on the idea that we don't vote for PM or national parties, a position that's partly right and mostly wrong, I think we disregard the established national pollsters at our peril. That's from a betting POV regardless of what they show for my team.
Yes it does, there is a razor thin majority and 13-8 is a huge price given the national polling. 66% of it going blue chance according to Electoral Calculus.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
The speed from which he went from "the renegotiation will have happened and be presented to voters" to "no-one is claiming the renegotiation will have been completed before it is presented to voters" was particularly impressive.
Its easy Socrates - he needs to get enough to win the referendum - it won't be enough for you but then nothing much would. However the majority of the Uk will be happy with that outcome.
Democracy sucks eh ?
Another one revelling in the intellectual dishonesty of the Tory leadership over the EU. Not really a surprise no one trusts them.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
I only bet for fun and I suspect you wouldn't be much fun to bet with.
Sozz.
What are you talking about? I'm one of the most irritating critics of your party and your leader on here! If you beat me, you get to take my hard earned money and bring it up again and again about how wrong I was for a good six months. That's loads of fun!
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And you know as well as I do that that's absolutely not on the cards.
It may well not be on the cards. I expect that Cameron and Osborne don't agree with you, or think it possible to achieve a reform which would convince you. That doesn't mean that the reform they want is meaningless, it means it is different from what you want.
However, whatever they achieve or don't achieve, they will offer you the opportunity to vote to leave the EU by the end of 2017, if there is a Conservative government.
It's one of the weirdest and most incoherent complaints by the BOOers that the renegotiation won't achieve anything. So what, from their point of view? They should be more worried if they thought it was going to be spectacularly successful.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
If you are right, Cameron and Osborne must believe that as things stand the UK should leave the EU and that only a renegotiation changes this. Given that, surely they should be able to tell us what it is they believe needs to change in order for them to support our continued membership.
If he explained all that in advance, there wouldn't be much of a "negotiation".
I agree that Cameron shouldn't spell out his red lines. But he could at least spell out his initial demands.
And Cameron supporters on here should definitely be able to spell out what their red lines would be. They are remarkably silent on that, because their red lines will only be defined when the renegotiation is completed, lest Cameron fails to meet them.
Well at least you've accepted it would be daft for Cameron to lay out his negotiating strategy in advance.
@RichardNabavi has set out his views before, as have I. Mine aren't red lines because I'd rather look at the totality of the package and reach a determination on what I think the right way to vote is.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
So we vote to stay in and then the changes get rejected? That sounds like exactly the sort of stitch-up Cameron is aiming for. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate. If it's a UK powers-specific deal then it probably wouldn't trigger a referendum elsewhere.
Surely the solution would be to have an AV referendum:
1. Stay in whatever 2. Stay in if the treaty changes are ratified by other members of the EU 3. Leave whatever
I don't think we can ask the other members of the EU to ratify treaty changes that might become moot by our leaving.
Of course we can. It is pretty obvious that if we were to leave there would have to be new treaties anyway for the remaining members so I really don't see the issue. Besides, any promises made without treaty change are frankly worthless as we have seen far too often over the last couple of decades.
I agree that any substantive changes would require treaty change.
However, I think asking - say - the Finns to have a referendum on treaty changes at the British behest that would become null and void in the event of us voting against is clearly a non-starter.
The only way it would work - and be fair to both us and to other members of the EU (given we're asking them to pay the price of referendums in their own countries) - would be for us to have a time limited AV referendum on membership. So, if treaty changes weren't ratified by x, then it kicks of the EU exit process.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
OMG Will somebody give Socrates £50 before we all die with the excruciating boredom of his repetitive rambling!
Maybe someone should bet him £50 that he'll mention the referendum again before the election.
Conservatives getting sensitive because I've hit a nerve in exposing the obvious dishonesty of their party's position.
Just vote to leave in the referendum. I may well do, depending on the outcome of what will inevitably be tricky negotiations (not least because the Eurozone may be imploding). Generally I think the EU is probably too riddled with soft corruption to be worth saving, which is in some ways a pity.
I'd agree that a more explicit threat to leave is probably needed before the negotiations start, but that would be counterproductive before the election, when the Tories are running on continuity.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
The speed from which he went from "the renegotiation will have happened and be presented to voters" to "no-one is claiming the renegotiation will have been completed before it is presented to voters" was particularly impressive.
Its easy Socrates - he needs to get enough to win the referendum - it won't be enough for you but then nothing much would. However the majority of the Uk will be happy with that outcome.
Democracy sucks eh ?
Another one revelling in the intellectual dishonesty of the Tory leadership over the EU. Not really a surprise no one trusts them.
There is nothing dishonest about declining to sign up for absolutism. Infact it is more honest than the spiritually pure anti-EU Jihad you crave. What if the EU had a radical change of direction due to a cataclysm over the next 6 months - would you want Cam to carry on down the path of inflexibility ?
Who knows how the EU will look in 2017 - only a mug would predict that - or what the Cons might get out of a negotiation.
If the blues win - we can have a vote - and then you can whine some more about rigged ballots, MI5 plots and secret oil fields.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
No, there is only one person I have previously barred from engaging with, namely yourself.
Life is too short to debate with people who call me dishonest.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
I only bet for fun and I suspect you wouldn't be much fun to bet with.
Sozz.
What are you talking about? I'm one of the most irritating critics of your party and your leader on here! If you beat me, you get to take my hard earned money and bring it up again and again about how wrong I was for a good six months. That's loads of fun!
I'm surprised more cabinet ministers haven't come pleading and begging at Clegg's door to be sacked btw given what its done for the chances of those who have.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
I only bet for fun and I suspect you wouldn't be much fun to bet with.
Sozz.
What are you talking about? I'm one of the most irritating critics of your party and your leader on here! If you beat me, you get to take my hard earned money and bring it up again and again about how wrong I was for a good six months. That's loads of fun!
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
I can’t imagine any PM going to the country and saying “we’re doing OK in the negotiations, so you can vote now and if we do get what we want we’ll stay in if you say so.”
Apart from from leaving the negotiating team in an impossible position it would require that PM to have demonstrated a very high degree of trustworthiness indeed.
I'm surprised more cabinet ministers haven't come pleading and begging at Clegg's door to be sacked btw given what its done for the chances of those who have.
Back in 2012-13, I thought the LDs would be out of government by now.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
I can’t imagine any PM going to the country and saying “we’re doing OK in the negotiations, so you can vote now and if we do get what we want we’ll do what you say.”
Apart from from leaving the negotiating team in an impossible position it would require that PM to have demonstrated a very high degree of trustworthiness indeed.
No no no - Cameron will do this - the Kippers said so.
I agree that any substantive changes would require treaty change.
However, I think asking - say - the Finns to have a referendum on treaty changes at the British behest that would become null and void in the event of us voting against is clearly a non-starter.
The only way it would work - and be fair to both us and to other members of the EU (given we're asking them to pay the price of referendums in their own countries) - would be for us to have a time limited AV referendum on membership. So, if treaty changes weren't ratified by x, then it kicks of the EU exit process.
But in effect you are asking for the same thing. Treaty change requires every country to ratify so you could still have a situation where Ireland has a referendum on the changes with all that associated costs but the Italians decide not to ratify.
The idea that you will be able to get all the countries to ratify within a reasonable time frame is simply not realistic and I can easily see he process being dragged out for many years with us still remaining a member in spite of a vote to leave.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
Re "red lines", isn't all negotiation a series of pluses and minuses?
So, for example, Cameron might score:
CAP opt-out, 5 points Change to benefits rules, 5 points Points system, 3 points Exit from EHCR binding, 4 points
(These are made up, obviously...)
etc.
Achieving 12 points might be interesting. But none of the individual items are 'red lines'.
(I make this up solely as an example of how I would address any negotiation. And I wouldn't let anyone know how I rank my points, as why would I tip my hand?)
ISIS claim to have "burned alive" Jordanian pilot...
Sadly I expected something like this to happen. Beheading people would not suffice for those evil scum, as their aim is to cause the maximum outrage it seemed likely to me that they would eventually start burning their hostages to death. God I wish I had been wrong.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
No, what will happen is that the Tories will walk in and say "We want A, B, C, D, E and F in that order". The Germans will say "Well, we'll give you half of D, and a quarter of E". The French or the Romanians or someone else will say behind the scenes "we're not willing to give away half of D, but we will keep quiet about it for now" and the Tories will be perfectly aware of that but acquiesce to the deal, knowing there's a question mark over D.
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
I agree that any substantive changes would require treaty change.
However, I think asking - say - the Finns to have a referendum on treaty changes at the British behest that would become null and void in the event of us voting against is clearly a non-starter.
The only way it would work - and be fair to both us and to other members of the EU (given we're asking them to pay the price of referendums in their own countries) - would be for us to have a time limited AV referendum on membership. So, if treaty changes weren't ratified by x, then it kicks of the EU exit process.
But in effect you are asking for the same thing. Treaty change requires every country to ratify so you could still have a situation where Ireland has a referendum on the changes with all that associated costs but the Italians decide not to ratify.
The idea that you will be able to get all the countries to ratify within a reasonable time frame is simply not realistic and I can easily see he process being dragged out for many years with us still remaining a member in spite of a vote to leave.
But surely you could make the option time limited in the referendum, ie "ratified by all countries by 2020", with - say - the option of a one year extension by Act of Parliament if (say) the Belgian government collapsed just ahead of a ratification vote.
I'm simply making it clear that there surely is something that is simultaneously: fair (both to us and to other members of the EU), and achievable.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
Socrates, you have posted several requests for responses from Conservatives on what should the renegotiation contain. The problem is that we will probably not have a renegotiation because we will have a Labour led Govt created on the back of UKIP pulling away more 2010 Con voters that 2010 LAB voters. I have also answered your question on what I expect a renegotiation to achieve (see below) aka "the Hannon analysis".
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
I'm more worried by the distorting effects of some pollsters doing daily, twice-weekly or weekly opinion polls and others only monthly.
Back when all pollsters did one poll a month, maybe two or three if they were lucky to have contracts with more than one newspaper, they would be given equal weight. Now there is a large contrast between the daily YouGov polls at one extreme, and monthly ICM polls at the other. The more frequent polls dominate people's perceptions of how well the different parties are doing.
Christmas week* was fun, there were 16 individual polls, only 6 of which were YouGovs.
Re "red lines", isn't all negotiation a series of pluses and minuses?
So, for example, Cameron might score:
CAP opt-out, 5 points Change to benefits rules, 5 points Points system, 3 points Exit from EHCR binding, 4 points
(These are made up, obviously...)
etc.
Achieving 12 points might be interesting. But none of the individual items are 'red lines'.
(I make this up solely as an example of how I would address any negotiation. And I wouldn't let anyone know how I rank my points, as why would I tip my hand?)
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
No, what will happen is that the Tories will walk in and say "We want A, B, C, D, E and F in that order". The Germans will say "Well, we'll give you half of D, and a quarter of E". The French or the Romanians or someone else will say behind the scenes "we're not willing to give away half of D, but we will keep quiet about it for now" and the Tories will be perfectly aware of that but acquiesce to the deal, knowing there's a question mark over D.
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
We have a referendum and vote to stay in.
If that's your fear, could I suggest that you start working for the OUT campaign rather than waste your time quibbling with Tories on here?
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
No, what will happen is that the Tories will walk in and say "We want A, B, C, D, E and F in that order". The Germans will say "Well, we'll give you half of D, and a quarter of E". The French or the Romanians or someone else will say behind the scenes "we're not willing to give away half of D, but we will keep quiet about it for now" and the Tories will be perfectly aware of that but acquiesce to the deal, knowing there's a question mark over D.
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
ISIS claim to have "burned alive" Jordanian pilot...
The video is apparently released already. I'm not looking, let alone linking.
Just broken across the media. Truly evil creatures.
Incredibly, the stories I am hearing (from reliable sources) of what ISIS plan to do to soldiers/police in the UK/France would make this killing look positively moderate.
Boris is right. This is all one great, big, vile wank. Isis are sexual deviants gizzing as they kill. And needing to kill in ever more repulsive ways in order to get to climax.
My point is that it is only reasonable for us to go first, because if we say 'no, we want to leave anyway', then other people will have incurred expense at our request, for something that still wasn't good enough for us.
That being said, the referendum would clearly need to be a time limited approval, with the exit process being kicked off if it wasn't approved by a certain point in time.
The alternative - of course - would be for us to have a 2015 referendum to give Cameron a mandate to negotiate. And then, perhaps, another ratifying referendum in 2020.
WTF Labour's GE 2015 Strategy. Now I know that Labour have a lot of no go areas where they cannot talk about many issues, but LGBT bullying is hardly at the top of voters interest.
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
I'm glad I'm not a child today. The use of the word 'gay' as slang for 'a bit crap/annoying' was universally common amongst my classmates in the 80s and 90s - nothing homophobic was meant by it in the slightest.
I can understand how tangentially, in some Freudian context, that might lead in some to a subconscious link being instinctively drawn between negativity and homosexuality but, really, that's pretty desperate. Attitudes were not linked to its use and the word doesn't need to be policed. It's just kids being kids.
The nasty ones (very very few) who really were homophobic in this context used words like 'pansy', 'poofter' and 'faggot' which were, are, and remain very different.
Incidentally, my friends in this context did (and still do) include two socialists, both solid lefties, a Lib Dem member and a fervent Green. All were (and are) very pro gay rights.
"Lutfur Rahman’s Allies Are Considering Running For Parliament
Candidates associated with the controversial Tower Hamlets mayor could stand against Labour under the Tower Hamlets First banner in the upcoming general election":
Re "red lines", isn't all negotiation a series of pluses and minuses?
SNIP
Achieving 12 points might be interesting. But none of the individual items are 'red lines'.
(I make this up solely as an example of how I would address any negotiation. And I wouldn't let anyone know how I rank my points, as why would I tip my hand?)
I'm happy for a Conservative on here to describe their red lines in such terms, or even just "I'd need three out of these five". But they won't. Because their red line is actually whatever is achieved by Cameron. If all he gets are our opt-out back on the working time directive and that British MEPs get to vote from home on the third Wednesday in March, they'll say that was what they needed.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
No, what will happen is that the Tories will walk in and say "We want A, B, C, D, E and F in that order". The Germans will say "Well, we'll give you half of D, and a quarter of E". The French or the Romanians or someone else will say behind the scenes "we're not willing to give away half of D, but we will keep quiet about it for now" and the Tories will be perfectly aware of that but acquiesce to the deal, knowing there's a question mark over D.
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
Why are you so worried?
In May 2015 you're going to end up with a Labour government and no referendum at all.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And you know as well as I do that that's absolutely not on the cards.
It may well not be on the cards. I expect that Cameron and Osborne don't agree with you, or think it possible to achieve a reform which would convince you. That doesn't mean that the reform they want is meaningless, it means it is different from what you want.
However, whatever they achieve or don't achieve, they will offer you the opportunity to vote to leave the EU by the end of 2017, if there is a Conservative government.
It's one of the weirdest and most incoherent complaints by the BOOers that the renegotiation won't achieve anything. So what, from their point of view? They should be more worried if they thought it was going to be spectacularly successful.
Can you outline what Cameron and Osborne want, Richard, without using cliches, weasel words and hyperbole? Because I can't. On the contrary I have been pretty clear on what I want on here before. As has Fresh Start. If I knew and thought it aligned with that I would absolutely give credit where credit was due.
We've been here so many times before. Why should BOO'ers be impressed by a fraudulent renegotiation that the UK government tries to hoodwink the electorate into voting for, thereby sealing us into the EU for a further 20 years?
If I thought it was serious, and a real choice would be offered, I'd definitely vote Conservative. Why wouldn't I.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And if the reform doesnt satisfy you then you can vote no.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
No, it's not. The "reformed EU" won't be voted on because the renegotiation won't have finished by the time there's a vote. Richard Nabavi admitted this downthread.
Yes, yes - and then people will vote to stay in and then Cameron will conspire to have the changes whipped away afterwards and the helpless voters will be stuck in an EU they didnt want to be part of. Your claims of superior intellectual honesty are startling.
No, what will happen is that the Tories will walk in and say "We want A, B, C, D, E and F in that order". The Germans will say "Well, we'll give you half of D, and a quarter of E". The French or the Romanians or someone else will say behind the scenes "we're not willing to give away half of D, but we will keep quiet about it for now" and the Tories will be perfectly aware of that but acquiesce to the deal, knowing there's a question mark over D.
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
Why are you so worried?
In May 2015 you're going to end up with a Labour government and no referendum at all.
A post peak Kipper world isn't looking like a happy place - even if they get their referendum block from Ed.
ISIS claim to have "burned alive" Jordanian pilot...
The video is apparently released already. I'm not looking, let alone linking.
Just broken across the media. Truly evil creatures.
Incredibly, the stories I am hearing (from reliable sources) of what ISIS plan to do to soldiers/police in the UK/France would make this killing look positively moderate.
One suspects the Jordanian's will wreak a swift and brutal revenge on the prisoners IS wanted released.
"Lutfur Rahman’s Allies Are Considering Running For Parliament
Candidates associated with the controversial Tower Hamlets mayor could stand against Labour under the Tower Hamlets First banner in the upcoming general election":
Would make things interesting. On balance given the controversy over the mayoral election and higher turnout and different candidates I would still back Labour to hold on.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
I only bet for fun and I suspect you wouldn't be much fun to bet with.
Sozz.
What are you talking about? I'm one of the most irritating critics of your party and your leader on here! If you beat me, you get to take my hard earned money and bring it up again and again about how wrong I was for a good six months. That's loads of fun!
Nah, you're just irritating. ;-)
The problem is that £50 isn't worth the hassle.
I thought you were betting for fun, not money?
£50 I don't care about.
A case of wine, lunch or a beer is fun.
If I'm looking at a financial return anything less than about £20-25K just isn't worth the time. So I don't bet, I'd rather invest instead.
"Lutfur Rahman’s Allies Are Considering Running For Parliament
Candidates associated with the controversial Tower Hamlets mayor could stand against Labour under the Tower Hamlets First banner in the upcoming general election":
It was always going to be a matter of time before an unintegrated conservative Muslim segment of our population starts being an unintegrated conservative Muslim segment of our politics. And, on the current course, both things will increase with time.
Any value in Poplar & Limehouse if "Tower Hamlets First" stand? The Tories are at 20/1 and the area is gentrifying in places. Not sure 20/1 is quite big enough though.
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
If you don't believe in Ashcroft you should have the house down on the Conservatives in Sutton & Cheam.
I don't know, does that follow? I'm sort of at the position of treating his constituency and regional polls a bit like one of Lawro's guests.
Whilst Mike is big on the idea that we don't vote for PM or national parties, a position that's partly right and mostly wrong, I think we disregard the established national pollsters at our peril. That's from a betting POV regardless of what they show for my team.
The reason why there is an Ashcroft emphasis is because of the sheer scale of what he is doing. We have never had anything like this in the UK and it adds a whole new dimension to analysis of this election.
I regard constituency polls, especially where there've been follow-ups showing same broad picture, as very good pointers and certainly a good guide for betting.
All we get from you is whining. Come on. If you have detailed criticisms of the Ashcroft seat polling then let's have a discussion.
Comments
If it shows the SNP hosing up, well we knew that anyway, and if bookies massively react to that, we could get value opposing the SNP
If he explained all that in advance, there wouldn't be much of a "negotiation".
As for what he believes needs to be changed, David Cameron has of course laid out his position very clearly and cogently:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/david-camerons-speech-eu-full-text
Unfortunately I've not found anyone willing to offer odds.
And Cameron supporters on here should definitely be able to spell out what their red lines would be. They are remarkably silent on that, because their red lines will only be defined when the renegotiation is completed, lest Cameron fails to meet them.
Democracy sucks eh ?
I'm not sure which is worse, Lab SNP coalition or no government at all.
1. Stay in whatever
2. Stay in if the treaty changes are ratified by other members of the EU
3. Leave whatever
I don't think we can ask the other members of the EU to ratify treaty changes that might become moot by our leaving.
Life is too short to debate with people who call me dishonest.
But what is that reform? If the EU parliament didn't shuttle to Brussels every month, that'd be a 'reformed' EU. If we ceased to apply an EU directive to the compilation of tractor stats that'd be a 'reformed' EU. If we managed to get the 'Ever Closer Union' clause struck out from our treaty obligations, no doubt that'dbe a 'reformed' EU.
It's quite different from whether it's the substantive and far-reaching reform that Britain would really need to convince me it had a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU.
And you know as well as I do that that's absolutely not on the cards.
Whilst Mike is big on the idea that we don't vote for PM or national parties, a position that's partly right and mostly wrong, I think we disregard the established national pollsters at our peril. That's from a betting POV regardless of what they show for my team.
1) Voters want to stay in the EU
2) A majority support Dave's approach on renegotiation.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/another-day-another-ukip-dog-whistle-fancy-that/
Back when all pollsters did one poll a month, maybe two or three if they were lucky to have contracts with more than one newspaper, they would be given equal weight. Now there is a large contrast between the daily YouGov polls at one extreme, and monthly ICM polls at the other. The more frequent polls dominate people's perceptions of how well the different parties are doing.
Sozz.
But, this only happens IF we get a Conservative Govt.
The position of UKIPers is essentially that people like you are too weak-minded to see through the Cameroon's ploys and will essentially be tricked into voting for membership of a reformed EU that they dont really support. They describe this as the "intellectually honest" position.
The EU is not going to go away, we have to deal with it somehow. The only country in the world that would actually like the EU to go away is Putin's Russia. That should tell you something about UKIP and their friend Putin.We might be actually better in the EEA. The EU might well become much more closer integrated Eurozone and we, in or out of that might well be de facto just in the EEA. But that will not mean much difference to now. Any relationship with the EU will be similar to now. Thats why voting to give power to a Europhile anti referendum Labour Party is insane.
If we do not want a relationship with the EU and want to tow the UK (well England) away from everyone else then the mad insane kippers should be honest and say so. But the real truth is that kippers are the biggest liars of the lot.
So you're getting great value.
However, whatever they achieve or don't achieve, they will offer you the opportunity to vote to leave the EU by the end of 2017, if there is a Conservative government.
It's one of the weirdest and most incoherent complaints by the BOOers that the renegotiation won't achieve anything. So what, from their point of view? They should be more worried if they thought it was going to be spectacularly successful.
@RichardNabavi has set out his views before, as have I. Mine aren't red lines because I'd rather look at the totality of the package and reach a determination on what I think the right way to vote is.
However, I think asking - say - the Finns to have a referendum on treaty changes at the British behest that would become null and void in the event of us voting against is clearly a non-starter.
The only way it would work - and be fair to both us and to other members of the EU (given we're asking them to pay the price of referendums in their own countries) - would be for us to have a time limited AV referendum on membership. So, if treaty changes weren't ratified by x, then it kicks of the EU exit process.
I'd agree that a more explicit threat to leave is probably needed before the negotiations start, but that would be counterproductive before the election, when the Tories are running on continuity.
Who knows how the EU will look in 2017 - only a mug would predict that - or what the Cons might get out of a negotiation.
If the blues win - we can have a vote - and then you can whine some more about rigged ballots, MI5 plots and secret oil fields.
The problem is that £50 isn't worth the hassle.
Lord Thurlow is a chartered surveyor whilst the Earl of Kinnoull was trained as a barrister but works in insurance.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2014/Lords-notice-crossbench-hereditary-peers-by-election-result-feb-15.pdf
"Labour plan to tackle bullying with ban on children calling each other 'gay' and sex education lessons from age five"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937831/Ban-children-calling-gay-playground-Labour-plan-stamp-homophobic-bullying.html#ixzz3QhamLOjH
Apart from from leaving the negotiating team in an impossible position it would require that PM to have demonstrated a very high degree of trustworthiness indeed.
http://news.sky.com/story/1420187/cctv-footage-exposes-slaughterhouse-cruelty
I think I would want to be sure.
The idea that you will be able to get all the countries to ratify within a reasonable time frame is simply not realistic and I can easily see he process being dragged out for many years with us still remaining a member in spite of a vote to leave.
So, for example, Cameron might score:
CAP opt-out, 5 points
Change to benefits rules, 5 points
Points system, 3 points
Exit from EHCR binding, 4 points
(These are made up, obviously...)
etc.
Achieving 12 points might be interesting. But none of the individual items are 'red lines'.
(I make this up solely as an example of how I would address any negotiation. And I wouldn't let anyone know how I rank my points, as why would I tip my hand?)
Then the Tories will come back and say "We've achieved D and E! This transforms the EU!" We have a referendum and vote to stay in. Then the French block the half of D and only the quarter of E passes.
Eurosceptics will say "We bloody told you so! Let's have another referendum!" And David Cameron will say "No, this is a minor thing. We still have E and that proves we can achieve reform in the EU. We now have a mandate for staying in after the public made their intentions clear. We can't have endless referendums - we will now focus on continuing to change the EU from within."
I'm simply making it clear that there surely is something that is simultaneously: fair (both to us and to other members of the EU), and achievable.
Why do you assume that the German people want such very different things to British people?
(* well nine days, really)
LOL !
If that's your fear, could I suggest that you start working for the OUT campaign rather than waste your time quibbling with Tories on here?
I misread your post.
My point is that it is only reasonable for us to go first, because if we say 'no, we want to leave anyway', then other people will have incurred expense at our request, for something that still wasn't good enough for us.
That being said, the referendum would clearly need to be a time limited approval, with the exit process being kicked off if it wasn't approved by a certain point in time.
The alternative - of course - would be for us to have a 2015 referendum to give Cameron a mandate to negotiate. And then, perhaps, another ratifying referendum in 2020.
I can understand how tangentially, in some Freudian context, that might lead in some to a subconscious link being instinctively drawn between negativity and homosexuality but, really, that's pretty desperate. Attitudes were not linked to its use and the word doesn't need to be policed. It's just kids being kids.
The nasty ones (very very few) who really were homophobic in this context used words like 'pansy', 'poofter' and 'faggot' which were, are, and remain very different.
Incidentally, my friends in this context did (and still do) include two socialists, both solid lefties, a Lib Dem member and a fervent Green. All were (and are) very pro gay rights.
Candidates associated with the controversial Tower Hamlets mayor could stand against Labour under the Tower Hamlets First banner in the upcoming general election":
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/tower-hamlets-first-candidates
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31118020
In May 2015 you're going to end up with a Labour government and no referendum at all.
We've been here so many times before. Why should BOO'ers be impressed by a fraudulent renegotiation that the UK government tries to hoodwink the electorate into voting for, thereby sealing us into the EU for a further 20 years?
If I thought it was serious, and a real choice would be offered, I'd definitely vote Conservative. Why wouldn't I.
A case of wine, lunch or a beer is fun.
If I'm looking at a financial return anything less than about £20-25K just isn't worth the time. So I don't bet, I'd rather invest instead.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/tower-hamlets-first-candidates
I regard constituency polls, especially where there've been follow-ups showing same broad picture, as very good pointers and certainly a good guide for betting.
All we get from you is whining. Come on. If you have detailed criticisms of the Ashcroft seat polling then let's have a discussion.
Reading the notes, it appears they permit this, so strictly it's not AV.