"I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift."
True. You never lose votes by appealing to the lowest common denominator
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
Looks plausible. Not that I've got an interest or anything.
My boring "not much is happening" model seems as good an explanation for the last few months' polls as anything else, doesn't it? We get little poll spurts one way or the other which then relapse. Undecided voters who seem interested in voting are awfully thin on the ground.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
I think Fargle would be quite worried if thw Tories don't spurn his offer.
Interesting comment If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
Specifically challenged by Marr on the SNP’s allegation that Labour and the Tories were as one on what Marr rather tactfully called “£30bn of contraction”, Balls nodded his assent and offered not a word of disagreement or protest, before going on to insist that balancing the books “as soon as possible” was vital to the credible management of the economy and the SNP’s approach was “irresponsible”. (He merely noted that the Tories wanted to subsequently cut more.)
Unfortunately for you the problem for the nation is that Blair Brown and Darling, Scotsman all (like oh so many in the Labour 'top echelons', increased government spending in 10 years by 50 % in real terms. Even before the crash the nation could not afford that spending and borrowing rose rapidly despite tax hikes. After the crash another chunk of productive capacity was permanently lost on top of that. Plus we now find a huge drop in North Sea oil - also likely to be permanent. So how you think the nation can afford what you want to spend??
In any event ''Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that the fall in oil prices and lower gilt (government bond) yields will reduce the budget deficit in each of the next five years compared with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn statement forecast. The cumulative undershoot, £32bn, is not huge but it not to be sneezed at either. Goldman Sachs predicts a deficit undershoot of £8bn for this year alone, http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/ ''As for public spending, and Balls’s “unprecedented” £70bn of cuts, the figures are clear. In cash terms overall public spending will rise by £43bn between now and 2019-20; the duration of the next parliament (assuming it lasts five years). In real terms there is a planned cut, though less than £20bn. To get to £70bn, or anything like it, you have to add up all the areas where the coalition is planning to increase spending, including public investment, and subtract the rest. It is, to say the least, an odd approach.'' ''spending would need to fall to 36% of GDP to generate a small budget surplus; slightly higher than when Gordon Brown was chancellor in 1999-2000''
Scotland could do no worse a job on its own as these clowns at Westminster. It needs something better than catering to London and the South East to fix the ills of the UK. Westminster will not improve Scotland ever.
Looks plausible. Not that I've got an interest or anything.
My boring "not much is happening" model seems as good an explanation for the last few months' polls as anything else, doesn't it? We get little poll spurts one way or the other which then relapse. Undecided voters who seem interested in voting are awfully thin on the ground.
I think that the last couple of months of a campaign are often stalemates where each side cancels each other out. I think we have to go back to 92 to find one where the polls 2 months prior were far out.
Assuming a 7% swing in a constituency with 50 000 turnout, we get seats with a majority of less than 3500 changing hands, other things being equal. (And I am not convinced that other things are equal!)
Which makes Labour largest party but short of a majority, I think.
"I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift."
True. You never lose votes by appealing to the lowest common denominator
The view of opponents of democracy down the ages. "Lowest common denominator", we're dealing with people not whole numbers. Depressing post from Roger who is normally excellent.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift.
Which attack documentaries would these be? The jaw-dropping one which UKIP co-operated with and where its councillor said ''she had a problem with black people because there was ‘something about their faces’.''
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
I used the 2010 results for the Eastleigh rather than the by-election.
Using the 2013 by-election results, Eastleigh is UKIP gain!
David Cameron has made Ed Miliband look like a heavyweight because these boxers avoid the no.1 candidate because they feel they are going to be thumped-David Mellor.
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
Given how much has been leaked from the BBC, though, presumably there is a point at which due process has failed and he isn't getting a fair disciplinary process?
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
Alas, Doc, as I have pointed out before, the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU can only be settled by negotiation with our soon to be former partners. Unfortunately, as the Treaty of Lisbon stands that negotiation can only be settled after we have given notice of withdrawal. Therefore, by the EU's own rules what you wish for is impossible.
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
No one has proposed complete withdrawal and isolationism. Indeed the complete withdrawal option - by which I assume you mean not staying in EEA either - is proposed by those who wish for the maximum possible ability to trade with the rest of the world rather than being restricted in any way by membership of a trading bloc. Not something I particularly agree with but certainly the absolute opposite of isolationism.
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Did I dream it, or wasn't there polling at the time of the by-election that showed voters would return from their voting holiday when it came to the general - and the Tories would win Eastleigh. Was it an Ashcroft poll?
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
I don't think this is aimed at the Conservatives. This is an attempt to pressure Mr Miliband/Labour to commit to an EU referendum _before_ the election result comes in.
At the moment Labour rule themselves out of coalition with UKIP by not supporting an in/out referendum.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
Alas, Doc, as I have pointed out before, the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU can only be settled by negotiation with our soon to be former partners. Unfortunately, as the Treaty of Lisbon stands that negotiation can only be settled after we have given notice of withdrawal. Therefore, by the EU's own rules what you wish for is impossible.
So we are buying a pig in a poke unless we get the renegotiation first?
I appreciate that the EU will take a position, but rather like the Scottish Yes campaign there does need to be a plan.
Stay in the EEA? EFTA? Favoured trading partner like Turkey? Or no closer relationship than a non-european nation like China?
I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift.
Which attack documentaries would these be? The jaw-dropping one which UKIP co-operated with and where its councillor said ''she had a problem with black people because there was ‘something about their faces’.''
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Did I dream it, or wasn't there polling at the time of the by-election that showed voters would return from their voting holiday when it came to the general - and the Tories would win Eastleigh. Was it an Ashcroft poll?
It was the Ashcroft poll for Rochester and Strood that showed UKIP winning the by-election and the Blues winning the seat at the General Election.
Oh dear I see the usual suspects are rubbing themselves into a frothing frenzy again over nothing. This is old news which was widely covered last October. The Express
Shapps then dismissed any possibility of a deal so that's that but you never know with the Tories as Shapps is hardly a credible voice..
What is more interesting is the growing mass of opinion and reports indicating that hysterical scaremongers like Clegg and Brown are just that. This from the Democracy Movement:
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Factually incorrect. What about David Chidgey MP?
I had forgotton him, so apologies.
But my point remains, and the seat is not getting the kipper focus it did 2 years ago, and neither are the Tories standing such a lame duck.
I am a LD member, but from the betting point of view the Tories are the value in the seat.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
Did the paper forget to mention the name of this executive then?
Yes and no. He is referred to as "the executive" throughout, but some big hints are dropped who it might be, assuming he may have been speaking about himself in the third person.
I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift.
Which attack documentaries would these be? The jaw-dropping one which UKIP co-operated with and where its councillor said ''she had a problem with black people because there was ‘something about their faces’.''
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
That was probably quite a common attitude 20-30 years ago in male-dominated industries, but not now. In any case, it wasn't a "fight" it seemed to involve a senior employee ("talent") shouting at and, we are told, striking a more junior one. Completely unacceptable. If Tymon had hit Clarkson he would be facing dismissal without notice or pay in lieu. The same should hold true for Clarkson.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Top Gear is
Clarkson + Hammond + May
Without Clarkson it would be much diminished. Likewise a show without Hammond and May would be less good.
I suspect that right now, as we speak, Sky, Amazon, Netflix, ITV, Disney and a whole host of other media giants are trying to persuade the three of them to start a whole new show which will be very similar to Top Gear.
Top gear is Blue Peter updated
Hammond is Noakes Clarkson is Purves May is Singleton
They go on expeditions. They make things. They even used to have a dog.
Except, Valerie Singleton never punched Biddy Baxter's lights out....
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Did I dream it, or wasn't there polling at the time of the by-election that showed voters would return from their voting holiday when it came to the general - and the Tories would win Eastleigh. Was it an Ashcroft poll?
Maybe you dreamt it, or maybe not. There have been polls since the by-election, the latest showed the Tories back in 2nd place (from 3rd at the by-election) but 15% behind the LibDems. The preceding one showed them 8% behind the LibDems, so the Tories are going the wrong way. The 2014 council elections showed the LibDems holding all contested seats.
The Tories did hold Eastleigh until the by-election caused by Stephen Milligan's death, but that was 21 years ago. It has been held by the LibDems since then.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
Signing up to the EEA includes the four freedoms, including freedom of movement.
Show was once watched by eight million - now averages just 100,000
And obviously people will say yes but that 8 million was before multi-channel telly, internet etc...Blue Peter lost two thirds of its remaining audience in the last 2 years alone. BBC executives done well there.
Newsnight, down to as little as 100,000 as well.
These iconic programs have had make-overs and they are dying. I felt Top Gear was already very tired (odd episodes excluded e.g. the one with Hammond up a mountain in Canada), trying to pough on with new presenters, be interesting to see if they can make it work, or will it turn into a car version of the joy that is left wing right-on eco friendly Newsnight.
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Did I dream it, or wasn't there polling at the time of the by-election that showed voters would return from their voting holiday when it came to the general - and the Tories would win Eastleigh. Was it an Ashcroft poll?
It was the Ashcroft poll for Rochester and Strood that showed UKIP winning the by-election and the Blues winning the seat at the General Election.
No, it was deffo a different piece of polling to that.
Interesting comment If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
....
Unfortunately for you the problem for the nation is that Blair Brown and Darling, Scotsman all (like oh so many in the Labour 'top echelons', increased government spending in 10 years by 50 % in real terms. .... So how you think the nation can afford what you want to spend??
In any event ''Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that the fall in oil prices and lower gilt (government bond) yields will reduce the budget deficit in each of the next five years compared with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn statement forecast. The cumulative undershoot, £32bn, is not huge but it not to be sneezed at either. Goldman Sachs predicts a deficit undershoot of £8bn for this year alone, http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/ ''As for public spending, and Balls’s “unprecedented” £70bn of cuts, the figures are clear. In cash terms overall public spending will rise by £43bn between now and 2019-20; the duration of the next parliament (assuming it lasts five years). In real terms there is a planned cut, though less than £20bn. To get to £70bn, or anything like it, you have to add up all the areas where the coalition is planning to increase spending, including public investment, and subtract the rest. It is, to say the least, an odd approach.'' ''spending would need to fall to 36% of GDP to generate a small budget surplus; slightly higher than when Gordon Brown was chancellor in 1999-2000''
Scotland could do no worse a job on its own as these clowns at Westminster. It needs something better than catering to London and the South East to fix the ills of the UK. Westminster will not improve Scotland ever.
As ever you put up a straw man argument. And Scotland does not cater to London. Scotland has devolution and therefore can have its cake and eat it. Before devolution it had relatively more MPs. This seems a good idea to me where we did not have devolution - for the far flung places to be a bit better represented. In the USA even the least populous state gets the same number of senators as California. But Labour botched up its devolution agenda.
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Eastleigh was pretty close to a three way marginal at the by election.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
Factually incorrect. What about David Chidgey MP?
I had forgotton him, so apologies.
But my point remains, and the seat is not getting the kipper focus it did 2 years ago, and neither are the Tories standing such a lame duck.
I am a LD member, but from the betting point of view the Tories are the value in the seat.
I agree that the Tories are the challengers, but the last poll showed an increased LD lead up from 8% to 15% mainly due to UKIP still polling quite well in third.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
I haven’t anywhere among all our discussions seen many thoughts about how our current partners would view the situation. I was taught that in preparing for any discussions someone should try and act as “the other side”. Would the French, for example, really prefer it if the de Gaulle NON had prevailed?
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
Alas, Doc, as I have pointed out before, the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU can only be settled by negotiation with our soon to be former partners. Unfortunately, as the Treaty of Lisbon stands that negotiation can only be settled after we have given notice of withdrawal. Therefore, by the EU's own rules what you wish for is impossible.
So we are buying a pig in a poke unless we get the renegotiation first?
I appreciate that the EU will take a position, but rather like the Scottish Yes campaign there does need to be a plan.
Stay in the EEA? EFTA? Favoured trading partner like Turkey? Or no closer relationship than a non-european nation like China?
The UK and the EU could agree to something before notice to leave was served but by the terms of the Treaty there has to be negotiation after the notice and it is that negotiation that will settle the details of the future relationship.
There definitely does have to be a plan but it can only be an aspiration and not a guarantee of what the relationship will be. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should really be renamed as Catch 22. You have to know the terms of the future relationship before you can decide if you want to leave but those terms cannot be known until after you have decided to leave.
I haven’t anywhere among all our discussions seen many thoughts about how our current partners would view the situation. I was taught that in preparing for any discussions someone should try and act as “the other side”. Would the French, for example, really prefer it if the de Gaulle NON had prevailed?
Our partners, with varying degrees of polish and understanding, are going to tell Cameron to get stuffed. Cameron has already said he couldn't countenance leaving the EU so his negotiation position is weak. If he really grovels they might give him a nice bit of shiny tinsel to bring home, which he will try to sell to the voters as a huge success.
MG I could not agree more with the sacking..well deserved..It is a clause in my BBC contracts too...but what we are discussing is Clarkson suing some prat in the upper echelons of the BBC for comparing him to a mass sexual predator.Bear in mind that Clarkson is followed by millions on twitter and his show goes out to something like 300 million viewers..who will now see the headline. The so called exec should be fired. he is going to cost us a bloody fortune
I doubt it. The case could be made that as Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister, the analogy was not inaccurate. Clarkson does have a history of going off on one (there was a blind item about him haranguing a beggar some years back), but then again Savile engaged in mass sexual assault over decades, so the analogy is plainly disproportionate. But the salient point (sleb gets carte blanche to twat the oiks cos posh friends) still holds.
Interesting comment If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
....
Unfortunately for you the problem for the nation is that Blair Brown and Darling, Scotsman all (like oh so many in the Labour 'top echelons', increased government spending in 10 years by 50 % in real terms. .... So how you think the nation can afford what you want to spend??
In any event ''Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that the fall in oil prices and lower gilt (government bond) yields will reduce the budget deficit in each of the next five years compared with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn statement forecast. The cumulative undershoot, £32bn, is not huge but it not to be sneezed at either. Goldman Sachs predicts a deficit undershoot of £8bn for this year alone, http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/ ''As for public spending, and Balls’s “unprecedented” £70bn of cuts, the figures are clear. In cash terms overall public spending will rise by £43bn between now and 2019-20; the duration of the next parliament (assuming it lasts five years). In real terms there is a planned cut, though less than £20bn. To get to £70bn, or anything like it, you have to add up all the areas where the coalition is planning to increase spending, including public investment, and subtract the rest. It is, to say the least, an odd approach.'' ''spending would need to fall to 36% of GDP to generate a small budget surplus; slightly higher than when Gordon Brown was chancellor in 1999-2000''
Scotland could do no worse a job on its own as these clowns at Westminster. It needs something better than catering to London and the South East to fix the ills of the UK. Westminster will not improve Scotland ever.
As ever you put up a straw man argument. And Scotland does not cater to London. Scotland has devolution and therefore can have its cake and eat it. Before devolution it had relatively more MPs. This seems a good idea to me where we did not have devolution - for the far flung places to be a bit better represented. In the USA even the least populous state gets the same number of senators as California. But Labour botched up its devolution agenda.
Totally agree, it is a sticking plaster devised by Labour to ensure they had complete control. UK needs properly fixed or it will disintegrate, Westminster will ensure it disintegrates as the establishment want to keep the cosy , taking turns , power arrangement.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
But it's far easier to call out a false claim of concessions being meaningful than to argue there will never be any reform.
You need to appeal to the people on the fence to win - people like myself - and the way to do that is to *prove* that renegotiation is meaningless.
I doubt it. The case could be made that as Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister, the analogy was not inaccurate.
Careful... there is no evidence for any of that at the moment... all we knew is a swing was made, any suggestions of the punch connecting, or treatment being required would seem courageous.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
I think the problem is that - as Hurst has already mentioned - that is the only way we could legally do it under the Lisbon Treaty. We could (and should) of course make clear what our preferred options would be but otherwise we cannot do any negotiations about the form of our post-exit relationship until we have actually declared we are leaving. All such negotiations are covered by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
It also requires the consent of the European Parliament.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
If it is an early referendum then there will be no treaty upon which to base that question. Indeed, even if it is a 2017 vote there will be no treaty since there will not have been time to develop one.
Betting post. Next LD Leader. "Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid. “I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
Betting post. Next LD Leader. "Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid. “I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
I agree.
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
There is no "North Korean Option". And the fact you are repeating Gordon Brown's lunatic pronouncements shows just how desperate the Europhiles are.
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
I think the problem is that - as Hurst has already mentioned - that is the only way we could legally do it under the Lisbon Treaty. We could (and should) of course make clear what our preferred options would be but otherwise we cannot do any negotiations about the form of our post-exit relationship until we have actually declared we are leaving. All such negotiations are covered by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
It also requires the consent of the European Parliament.
Or we just tell them to go to hell, repeal the European Communities Act and dis-apply the relevant regulations, that's what the French would do in our position
The UK and the EU could agree to something before notice to leave was served but by the terms of the Treaty there has to be negotiation after the notice and it is that negotiation that will settle the details of the future relationship.
There definitely does have to be a plan but it can only be an aspiration and not a guarantee of what the relationship will be. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should really be renamed as Catch 22. You have to know the terms of the future relationship before you can decide if you want to leave but those terms cannot be known until after you have decided to leave.
There are precedents. The EU-28 can agree a memorandum of understanding between them (i.e. outside the EU negotiating framework). That can then be incorporated into EU law by attaching it as a codicil (right word?) the next time the Treaties are updated. I think this is how the Irish guarantees after Lisbon II were law-ified (they were slipped in with the Croatia Accession Treaty?), but don't quote me.
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
.....
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
But losing the referendum has killed electoral reform for the forsee-able.
So would losing a EU referendum.
UKIP agree on little else, veering eratically between libertarianism and welfare statism, depending which side of the bed Nigel has got out of.
An early referendum before any renegotiation allows UKIP to call for a second one after the renegotiation (on the grounds that it is not enough)
If we vote to stay in then UKIP can 'call' all they like. The vote has come and gone. If we have voted to stay in on the old terms then any other even marginally better terms would not require a vote. But the argument is facile. There is no point voting on an EU referendum before any negotiations. A 'YES we stay in' vote weakens any hand we have and a 'NO we walk out' one does the same when it comes to dealing with the EU afterwards. I'm not sure if we leave the EU after negotiations that we would need any more referendums. We are already in the EEA and may not need to reapply, just determine the terms. It strikes me that is what we have parliament and elections for.
Or we just tell them to go to hell, repeal the European Communities Act and dis-apply the relevant regulations, that's what the French would do in our position
I think most Eurosceptics would agree that we would want to have reasonable relations with the EU after we had left and that simply tearing up treaties is not the way to do it.
I doubt it. The case could be made that as Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister, the analogy was not inaccurate.
Careful... there is no evidence for any of that at the moment... all we knew is a swing was made, any suggestions of the punch connecting, or treatment being required would seem courageous.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
If it is an early referendum then there will be no treaty upon which to base that question. Indeed, even if it is a 2017 vote there will be no treaty since there will not have been time to develop one.
Even developing one at all is doubtful. Several other EU nations, notably the Spanish, have very good reasons for not going anywhere near this sort of treaty (ie. the Basques) and would object strenuously to any such treaty, never mind pass it. They would probably object to Scotland rejoining the EU if the UK left from pretty much the same reason, it would be a dangerous precedent for their own separatist problem.
Totally agree, it is a sticking plaster devised by Labour to ensure they had complete control. UK needs properly fixed or it will disintegrate, Westminster will ensure it disintegrates as the establishment want to keep the cosy , taking turns , power arrangement.
Afternoon, Mr. G.. I think that you are correct in saying that either a more equitable form of devolution needs to be implemented or the UK will disintegrate. However, I strongly suspect that it will be impossible to come to an agreement as to what is equitable and therefore the Union is doomed.
Unfortunately, due to the SNP buggering up its campaign last year, the process of separation is now going to be more prolonged and more acrimonious that it needed to have been.
Betting post. Next LD Leader. "Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid. “I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
#ferretsinasack
Farron "‘If you believe what really matters is that ministerial car, you will give way to the other side more than you should. We are curating the party of Gladstone,’ he declares grandly.
Betting post. Next LD Leader. "Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid. “I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
Oof. The establishment lining up against Farron?
-
I have been reading below that the Lib Dems could have negotiated a better pact with the Conservatives by staying out of government. I don't see it. Most importantly, they would have been relying on Conservative ministers to implement their policies. If anything, this would have meant fewer LD policies enacted, not more, and less credit for enacting them, not more. At best, they could have stayed in office until the first or second budget, and note how quickly after 2010 GE they landed back on about 16 per cent.
Viewcode You must have a strange view of the world if you equate lashing out at someone, in anger, perhaps , and decades of sexual abuse. Could you give me some approximation of your movements this year so that I can avoid you.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
But it's far easier to call out a false claim of concessions being meaningful than to argue there will never be any reform.
You need to appeal to the people on the fence to win - people like myself - and the way to do that is to *prove* that renegotiation is meaningless.
Actually as I have argued on here before, I think both Farage and Cameron are wrong on this.
My personal preference would be for a proposal from Cameron for a referendum right at the end of the next Parliament. That would give almost 5 years for negotiations and for the results to be ratified by all the members of the EU via a new treaty. If by the end of that time the treaty had not been ratified or had been rejected by some countries then we would know clearly where we stood with regard to the EU and would be able to say with certainty that what we wanted from the renegotiation was not going to happen.
Choosing 2017 is almost gauranteeing that no meaningful and binding renegotiation has been achieved and will allow Cameron to promise all sorts of things without having to worry about the EU saying no.
Totally agree, it is a sticking plaster devised by Labour to ensure they had complete control. UK needs properly fixed or it will disintegrate, Westminster will ensure it disintegrates as the establishment want to keep the cosy , taking turns , power arrangement.
Afternoon, Mr. G.. I think that you are correct in saying that either a more equitable form of devolution needs to be implemented or the UK will disintegrate. However, I strongly suspect that it will be impossible to come to an agreement as to what is equitable and therefore the Union is doomed.
Unfortunately, due to the SNP buggering up its campaign last year, the process of separation is now going to be more prolonged and more acrimonious that it needed to have been.
Afternoon Hurst, I agree , the establishment parties will only do it when forced and that will be too late.
Betting post. Next LD Leader. "Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid. “I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
If it is an early referendum then there will be no treaty upon which to base that question. Indeed, even if it is a 2017 vote there will be no treaty since there will not have been time to develop one.
If 2015, I agree - which is why I think it's a bad idea.
In 2017, you should be able to at least have the big issues agreed. I'd wonder, anyway, if it is policy rather than structural, it coul dbe done as an amendment. From what I recall of Maastricht and Nice it was things like QMV and the number of Commissioners - i.e. the structural stuff - that was difficult. Changing the freedom of movement to, say, state that any welfare benefits are reimbursed by the originator country or whatever shouldn't be as tricky. Ratification, of course, will take time.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
If it is an early referendum then there will be no treaty upon which to base that question. Indeed, even if it is a 2017 vote there will be no treaty since there will not have been time to develop one.
If 2015, I agree - which is why I think it's a bad idea.
In 2017, you should be able to at least have the big issues agreed. I'd wonder, anyway, if it is policy rather than structural, it coul dbe done as an amendment. From what I recall of Maastricht and Nice it was things like QMV and the number of Commissioners - i.e. the structural stuff - that was difficult. Changing the freedom of movement to, say, state that any welfare benefits are reimbursed by the originator country or whatever shouldn't be as tricky. Ratification, of course, will take time.
If it is not bound in treaty then it is not worth the paper it is written on. It can be modified or reinterpreted by the ECJ - as a number of our supposed opt outs have been in the past. No treaty effectively means it is worthless.
Cameron would be absolutely mad to accept the politic price for, at best, six or seven seats, and by reckoning more likely 3 or 4.
...
...
By NK I mean complete withdrawal and Isolationism. But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
The relationship would be joining the EEA. As long as it does not mean joining Schengen it's not a bad option, although if you are a libdem no doubt that would not bother you. The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area. A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair. Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
I think the problem is that - as Hurst has already mentioned - that is the only way we could legally do it under the Lisbon Treaty. We could (and should) of course make clear what our preferred options would be but otherwise we cannot do any negotiations about the form of our post-exit relationship until we have actually declared we are leaving. All such negotiations are covered by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
It also requires the consent of the European Parliament.
Would we get a vote in the EU parliament :-) Mr Hursts point is a fair one. However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy. UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens. The point remains that the future development of the Eurozone and EU will mean we should have negotiations and after that a referendum to end all this nonsense one way or the other. If that can be 2016 so much the better but 2015 is not realistic for either side of the argument. It makes you wonder what Farage really wants if anything. PS - I do not see a referendum after negotiations splitting the Tories, self-mutilatingly thick though many of its backbenchers are.
Rawnsley's column today alludes to "Ulster Unionists" supporting a Cameron government. It confirms my belief that GB media pay zero attention to political developments this side of the Irish Sea. Pity, because the UUP-DUP transition is an example of the old patrician conservatives being overthrown by a working-class, Eurosceptic right-wing party.
If 2015, I agree - which is why I think it's a bad idea.
In 2017, you should be able to at least have the big issues agreed. I'd wonder, anyway, if it is policy rather than structural, it coul dbe done as an amendment. From what I recall of Maastricht and Nice it was things like QMV and the number of Commissioners - i.e. the structural stuff - that was difficult. Changing the freedom of movement to, say, state that any welfare benefits are reimbursed by the originator country or whatever shouldn't be as tricky. Ratification, of course, will take time.
If it is not bound in treaty then it is not worth the paper it is written on. It can be modified or reinterpreted by the ECJ - as a number of our supposed opt outs have been in the past. No treaty effectively means it is worthless.
Its a Catch 22.
In order to be sure we need a signed, ratified treaty. There is no chance the EU countries are going to spend 5 years haggling over and then ratifying a treaty just for us to hold a referendum at the end and say "thanks, but no thanks" and leave anyway.
Similarly any time before full ratification there is a good chance that one of the countries will not ratify the treaty. Out good friends the French and the Spanish have already said in as many words that there were not interested in ratifying treaties to make the UK happy while the EU had bigger fish to fry (although what they think is bigger than 20% of their nett contribution walking out the door is anyone's guess)
The only thing that has a chance of working is for the UK referendum to authorised the PM to continue our membership subject to the passing of a treaty which grants us a list of agreed concessions before a given date, and that if the treaty is not ratified by that date, the UK would withdraw from the EU. So conditional continuation of membership subject to full and timely ratification.
...the 2013 British Social Attitudes survey endorsed reducing immigration. Indeed, over 56% chose 'reduced a lot', while 77% chose either 'reduced a lot' or 'reduced a little'. The same question yielded similar results on the British Social Attitudes survey in 2008, adding confidence that these are reliable estimates.
Seems a bit more than the 14% kipper vote. Since the Greens and the Guardianista want to let everyone in, 56% is probably quite a lot of the Tory vote.
I doubt it. The case could be made that as Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister, the analogy was not inaccurate.
Careful... there is no evidence for any of that at the moment... all we knew is a swing was made, any suggestions of the punch connecting, or treatment being required would seem courageous.
'Careful'...???!!! Viewcode's lies are a load of libel. The grotesque analogy is totally inaccurate. The comparison is with two grown men arguing over a steak sandwich and a celebrity pervert assaulting children. In neither case was anyone protected by the prime minister or any 'rich well connected friends'.
Would we get a vote in the EU parliament :-) Mr Hursts point is a fair one. However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy. UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens. The point remains that the future development of the Eurozone and EU will mean we should have negotiations and after that a referendum to end all this nonsense one way or the other. If that can be 2016 so much the better but 2015 is not realistic for either side of the argument. It makes you wonder what Farage really wants if anything. PS - I do not see a referendum after negotiations splitting the Tories, self-mutilatingly thick though many of its backbenchers are.
This is an interesting point and one I raised with Dr Richard North (who is certainly no admirer of Farage) last year. He was of the opinion that having joined the EU we had left EFTA - and consequently would need to reapply for EFTA membership in order to be a member of the EEA.
I happen to think he is wrong on this as we were independent signatories of the EEA alongside all the other countries and the EU as a separate signatory.
Dr North was going to raise the question with Kristinn Árnason who is the current Secratary General of EFTA and who apparently he knows but I have not heard anything more on this at the moment.
Viewcode You must have a strange view of the world if you equate lashing out at someone, in anger, perhaps , and decades of sexual abuse. Could you give me some approximation of your movements this year so that I can avoid you.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
That doesn't work though because all other countries won't have ratified it. It should be:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
If it is an early referendum then there will be no treaty upon which to base that question. Indeed, even if it is a 2017 vote there will be no treaty since there will not have been time to develop one.
If 2015, I agree - which is why I think it's a bad idea.
In 2017, you should be able to at least have the big issues agreed. I'd wonder, anyway, if it is policy rather than structural, it coul dbe done as an amendment. From what I recall of Maastricht and Nice it was things like QMV and the number of Commissioners - i.e. the structural stuff - that was difficult. Changing the freedom of movement to, say, state that any welfare benefits are reimbursed by the originator country or whatever shouldn't be as tricky. Ratification, of course, will take time.
If it is not bound in treaty then it is not worth the paper it is written on. It can be modified or reinterpreted by the ECJ - as a number of our supposed opt outs have been in the past. No treaty effectively means it is worthless.
I agree. But my point is I don't think Treaty = long and painful. I think *structural reform* Treaty = long and painful.
If this is not structural reform then it may be relatively easier to agree
Would we get a vote in the EU parliament :-) Mr Hursts point is a fair one. However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy. UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens. ....
This is an interesting point and one I raised with Dr Richard North (who is certainly no admirer of Farage) last year. He was of the opinion that having joined the EU we had left EFTA - and consequently would need to reapply for EFTA membership in order to be a member of the EEA.
I happen to think he is wrong on this as we were independent signatories of the EEA alongside all the other countries and the EU as a separate signatory.
Dr North was going to raise the question with Kristinn Árnason who is the current Secratary General of EFTA and who apparently he knows but I have not heard anything more on this at the moment.
''The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market". The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA.''
Read into that what you will. But 'leading to an enlargement of the EEA' to me means we are in the EEA as separate from the EU. Thus we do not need to apply, we would be still in. Frankly neither side wants to admit this since it weakens everyones argument. It weakens UKIP most I think since leaving the EU would make little difference.
Would we get a vote in the EU parliament :-) Mr Hursts point is a fair one. However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy. UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens. ....
This is an interesting point and one I raised with Dr Richard North (who is certainly no admirer of Farage) last year. He was of the opinion that having joined the EU we had left EFTA - and consequently would need to reapply for EFTA membership in order to be a member of the EEA.
I happen to think he is wrong on this as we were independent signatories of the EEA alongside all the other countries and the EU as a separate signatory.
Dr North was going to raise the question with Kristinn Árnason who is the current Secratary General of EFTA and who apparently he knows but I have not heard anything more on this at the moment.
''The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market". The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA.''
Read into that what you will. But 'leading to an enlargement of the EEA' to me means we are in the EEA as separate from the EU. Thus we do not need to apply, we would be still in. Frankly neither side wants to admit this since it weakens everyones argument. It weakens UKIP most I think since leaving the EU would make little difference.
I agree. That is my opinion as well - particularly as we were independent signatories. All I was saying was that there is some doubt about it and I think it would need to be clarified by the experts before we could rely upon it as a future strategy.
I agree. But my point is I don't think Treaty = long and painful. I think *structural reform* Treaty = long and painful.
If this is not structural reform then it may be relatively easier to agree
The mere fact that it would need to be ratified by all the other countries and that some of them would require their own referenda to do so would make it impossible to conclude before a 2017 UK referendum.
Frankly neither side wants to admit this since it weakens everyones argument. It weakens UKIP most I think since leaving the EU would make little difference.
Their current policy is to leave the EEA as well, and negotiate stand alone free trade agreements like South Korea.
I doubt it. The case could be made that as Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister, the analogy was not inaccurate.
Careful... there is no evidence for any of that at the moment... all we knew is a swing was made, any suggestions of the punch connecting, or treatment being required would seem courageous.
'Careful'...???!!! Viewcode's lies are a load of libel. The grotesque analogy is totally inaccurate. The comparison is with two grown men arguing over a steak sandwich and a celebrity pervert assaulting children. In neither case was anyone protected by the prime minister or any 'rich well connected friends'.
Given that AA Gill (a friend and colleague of Clarkson for many years), Allison Pearson (who claims acquaintance with Clarkson) and our current Prime Minister have gone into print with supportive statements, the statement "protected by rich well-connected friends" is defensible.
If the encounter between Clarkson and Tymon had been strictly verbal, then we would not be having this conversation. But it has been reported that the encounter left Tymon bleeding and requiring medical attention at Friarage Hospital in Northallerton.
So the statement "Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister" is technically true, if what has been reported in the papers is actually factual. I agree with you that the analogy is plainly disproportionate. But "disproportionate" and "untrue" are not the same thing..
I registered to vote recently in what will be my first GE... yet both seats I could legitimately have registered to vote in are very safe - North Essex (Bernard Jenkin) and Leyton and Wansted (John Cryer). No amount of tactical voting need even cross my mind. (Although I was a little surprised at Jenkin *only* being 1/12.)
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion? Did you bother to find out before spreading this prejudicial story?
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion.
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
It is now against the rules to claim for this...end of.
Viewcode, .... If Ed was suspended from the Labour party under any circumstances, would he get 900 or even 90 people to sign a petition to bring him back?
There are a few million Conservatives and a million SNP supporters who would want him back.
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion.
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
It is now against the rules to claim for this...end of.
I know an MP who buys 5 every year of these from his own pocket. It's a charitable donation after all. To be fair it maybe a staff member who put it through and it wasn't picked up on. Doesn't look good though.
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion.
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
It is now against the rules to claim for this...end of.
If you don't like the Daily Mail...how about the BBC?
"Given how much has been leaked from the BBC, though, presumably there is a point at which due process has failed and he isn't getting a fair disciplinary process?"
Well considering we've had comments from the Prime Minister downwards in defense of his old mucker not to menion a 600,000 petition before the BBC had opened their mouth I'd say they've acted with considerable though understandable restraint.
Would we get a vote in the EU parliament :-) Mr Hursts point is a fair one. However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy. UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens. ....
e the question with Kristinn Árnason who is the current Secratary General of EFTA and who apparently he knows but I have not heard anything more on this at the moment.
nce it weakens everyones argument. It weakens UKIP most I think since leaving the EU would make little difference.
I agree. That is my opinion as well - particularly as we were independent signatories. All I was saying was that there is some doubt about it and I think it would need to be clarified by the experts before we could rely upon it as a future strategy.
I believe Article 127 of the EEA agreement covers it:
Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties.
Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.
"Given how much has been leaked from the BBC, though, presumably there is a point at which due process has failed and he isn't getting a fair disciplinary process?"
Well considering we've had comments from the Prime Minister downwards in defense of his old mucker not to menion a 600,000 petition before the BBC had opened their mouth I'd say they've acted with considerable though understandable restraint.
David Cameron just said that he was a friend and that it needed sorting out.
Mere statements of the obvious. He did not call for reinstatement etc.
I like Top Gear but the show has got a bit too repetitive recently. Perhaps it is time they all moved on and ended it now rather than jump the shark.
Clarkson was brilliant at his wartime docs, particularly the arctic convoy one.
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion.
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
It is now against the rules to claim for this...end of.
I know an MP who buys 5 every year of these from his own pocket. It's a charitable donation after all. To be fair it maybe a staff member who put it through and it wasn't picked up on. Doesn't look good though.
Hard to believe that someone would be so tin-eared as to actually try such a claim these days - although Champion is an unpleasant piece of work so it wouldn't be out of character.
Instinctively I'm inclined to consider, as you do, clerical error. Unfortunately if that's genuinely the case you get no public sympathy for blaming an underling afterwards either. So it's lose-lose for her.
Comments
"I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift."
True. You never lose votes by appealing to the lowest common denominator
Spurning Farages fantasy offer is desireable politically.
Apart from anything else any referendum needs at least a year for the sides to get their arguments together, not least the BOOers.
The Indyref failed largely because the Yes campaign failed to have an acceptable idea of indyScotlands relationship with the UK. The BOOers could easily fall at the same hurdle if they cannot agree whether to go with a Swiss style solution or a North Korean option or some other point between.
In other words: we would need to know what we are voting for/against.
My boring "not much is happening" model seems as good an explanation for the last few months' polls as anything else, doesn't it? We get little poll spurts one way or the other which then relapse. Undecided voters who seem interested in voting are awfully thin on the ground.
Assuming a 7% swing in a constituency with 50 000 turnout, we get seats with a majority of less than 3500 changing hands, other things being equal. (And I am not convinced that other things are equal!)
Which makes Labour largest party but short of a majority, I think.
But if we are to have a less extreme relationship then what is it to be? We need to know before the vote.
No one makes these kippers say what they say. Quotes like ‘f***ing disgusting old poofter’.
The UKIP base in Carmarthenshire looks very energised I must say
http://www.carmarthenjournal.co.uk/Carmarthenshire-UKIP-candidate-suspended-party/story-26172087-detail/story.html
Using the 2013 by-election results, Eastleigh is UKIP gain!
That would make UKIP 3, Con 267.
Without the unsuccessful kipper campaign and with the further fading of the LD vote, a Tory gain is very possible from third place. This was a very safe Tory seat until Chris Huhne.
At the moment Labour rule themselves out of coalition with UKIP by not supporting an in/out referendum.
I appreciate that the EU will take a position, but rather like the Scottish Yes campaign there does need to be a plan.
Stay in the EEA? EFTA? Favoured trading partner like Turkey? Or no closer relationship than a non-european nation like China?
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union on the terms as set out in the Treaty of Tyndall"
Oh dear I see the usual suspects are rubbing themselves into a frothing frenzy again over nothing. This is old news which was widely covered last October. The Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/521754/Support-surges-to-25-percent-for-Farage-Ukip
Shapps then dismissed any possibility of a deal so that's that but you never know with the Tories as Shapps is hardly a credible voice..
What is more interesting is the growing mass of opinion and reports indicating that hysterical scaremongers like Clegg and Brown are just that. This from the Democracy Movement:
http://www.globalbritain.co.uk/sites/default/files/GB Report The Scaremongers.pdf
and this from the Telegraph:
We can survive a Brexit, but banks would take a hit
The economic risks of a leaving the EU are both slighter and more nuanced than Gordon Brown with his 'North Korea' claims will admit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11462085/We-can-survive-a-Brexit-but-banks-would-take-a-hit.html
And now back to something that is the tiniest bit interesting....
But my point remains, and the seat is not getting the kipper focus it did 2 years ago, and neither are the Tories standing such a lame duck.
I am a LD member, but from the betting point of view the Tories are the value in the seat.
The EEA has its merit, we would be part of trade and single market rules but not the political currency aspects. It would protect as best we could our inward investment into the EU area.
A so called 'trade deal' would mean being part of the single market. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Negotiations would offer a chance to modify free movement of labour although most of the horse has bolted on that one thanks to Blair.
Walking out first and then looking to get 'something' from outside strikes me as not very clever. A 'shoot first and ask questions afterward' policy is unlikely to get many helpful answers.
What a show that would have been.
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/the-council/register-to-vote--elections/borough-elections/2014-borough-election-results.aspx
The Tories did hold Eastleigh until the by-election caused by Stephen Milligan's death, but that was 21 years ago. It has been held by the LibDems since then.
Show was once watched by eight million - now averages just 100,000
And obviously people will say yes but that 8 million was before multi-channel telly, internet etc...Blue Peter lost two thirds of its remaining audience in the last 2 years alone. BBC executives done well there.
Newsnight, down to as little as 100,000 as well.
These iconic programs have had make-overs and they are dying. I felt Top Gear was already very tired (odd episodes excluded e.g. the one with Hammond up a mountain in Canada), trying to pough on with new presenters, be interesting to see if they can make it work, or will it turn into a car version of the joy that is left wing right-on eco friendly Newsnight.
But Labour botched up its devolution agenda.
Not quite it appears.
Wonder if Tories can replicate big start of week leads tomorrow.
If they do can LAB continue to get stronger as the week goes on again?
Can Cameron get the GE moved to a Monday in return for agreeing to debate EIC!
Tee hee
I was taught that in preparing for any discussions someone should try and act as “the other side”.
Would the French, for example, really prefer it if the de Gaulle NON had prevailed?
There definitely does have to be a plan but it can only be an aspiration and not a guarantee of what the relationship will be. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should really be renamed as Catch 22. You have to know the terms of the future relationship before you can decide if you want to leave but those terms cannot be known until after you have decided to leave.
Tee hee
Why not vote on apple pie and motherhood too?
An EU referendum question that doesn't mention the EU is absurd.
Tee hee
He really is throwing his party's weight (1-6 MPs) around isn't he ;-).
You need to appeal to the people on the fence to win - people like myself - and the way to do that is to *prove* that renegotiation is meaningless.
It also requires the consent of the European Parliament.
"Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Pienaar’s Politics, Lord Ashdown accused Mr Farron of trying to position himself for a leadership bid.
“I think his well-known ambitions would be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement,” he said. “Tim is a very able guy but judgement is not his strong suit.”"
But the argument is facile.
There is no point voting on an EU referendum before any negotiations. A 'YES we stay in' vote weakens any hand we have and a 'NO we walk out' one does the same when it comes to dealing with the EU afterwards. I'm not sure if we leave the EU after negotiations that we would need any more referendums. We are already in the EEA and may not need to reapply, just determine the terms. It strikes me that is what we have parliament and elections for.
And of course we are not the French :-)
Unfortunately, due to the SNP buggering up its campaign last year, the process of separation is now going to be more prolonged and more acrimonious that it needed to have been.
Tee hee
I don't think the Electoral Commission would agree to that wording
"‘If you believe what really matters is that ministerial car, you will give way to the other side more than you should. We are curating the party of Gladstone,’ he declares grandly.
‘We must not crash it by making short-term decisions in any coalition agreement.’ If the party makes too many concessions in the crucial few days after the Election, ‘whoever’s leader, whether it’s Nick or somebody else… we’re dead’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995263/As-Clegg-s-biggest-rival-launches-thinly-veiled-leadership-challenge-Saint-Tim-Lib-Dems-saviour-just-God-bothering-sandal-wearing.html
-
I have been reading below that the Lib Dems could have negotiated a better pact with the Conservatives by staying out of government. I don't see it. Most importantly, they would have been relying on Conservative ministers to implement their policies. If anything, this would have meant fewer LD policies enacted, not more, and less credit for enacting them, not more. At best, they could have stayed in office until the first or second budget, and note how quickly after 2010 GE they landed back on about 16 per cent.
My personal preference would be for a proposal from Cameron for a referendum right at the end of the next Parliament. That would give almost 5 years for negotiations and for the results to be ratified by all the members of the EU via a new treaty. If by the end of that time the treaty had not been ratified or had been rejected by some countries then we would know clearly where we stood with regard to the EU and would be able to say with certainty that what we wanted from the renegotiation was not going to happen.
Choosing 2017 is almost gauranteeing that no meaningful and binding renegotiation has been achieved and will allow Cameron to promise all sorts of things without having to worry about the EU saying no.
Farron +21
The field -20
He'll go to about 1-2 when Clegg steps down.
In 2017, you should be able to at least have the big issues agreed. I'd wonder, anyway, if it is policy rather than structural, it coul dbe done as an amendment. From what I recall of Maastricht and Nice it was things like QMV and the number of Commissioners - i.e. the structural stuff - that was difficult. Changing the freedom of movement to, say, state that any welfare benefits are reimbursed by the originator country or whatever shouldn't be as tricky. Ratification, of course, will take time.
Mr Hursts point is a fair one.
However I believe we are in the EEA by virtue of being in the EU and leaving the EU would or could just leave us in the EEA. This would be the default position. I repeat its not a bad one. We keep the trade deals that the EEA represents and it protects confidence in our economy.
UKIP's anti foreigner bias will not like it, but ultimately UKIP only represent discontent no matter what happens.
The point remains that the future development of the Eurozone and EU will mean we should have negotiations and after that a referendum to end all this nonsense one way or the other. If that can be 2016 so much the better but 2015 is not realistic for either side of the argument. It makes you wonder what Farage really wants if anything.
PS - I do not see a referendum after negotiations splitting the Tories, self-mutilatingly thick though many of its backbenchers are.
In order to be sure we need a signed, ratified treaty. There is no chance the EU countries are going to spend 5 years haggling over and then ratifying a treaty just for us to hold a referendum at the end and say "thanks, but no thanks" and leave anyway.
Similarly any time before full ratification there is a good chance that one of the countries will not ratify the treaty. Out good friends the French and the Spanish have already said in as many words that there were not interested in ratifying treaties to make the UK happy while the EU had bigger fish to fry (although what they think is bigger than 20% of their nett contribution walking out the door is anyone's guess)
The only thing that has a chance of working is for the UK referendum to authorised the PM to continue our membership subject to the passing of a treaty which grants us a list of agreed concessions before a given date, and that if the treaty is not ratified by that date, the UK would withdraw from the EU. So conditional continuation of membership subject to full and timely ratification.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern Seems a bit more than the 14% kipper vote. Since the Greens and the Guardianista want to let everyone in, 56% is probably quite a lot of the Tory vote.
Viewcode's lies are a load of libel. The grotesque analogy is totally inaccurate. The comparison is with two grown men arguing over a steak sandwich and a celebrity pervert assaulting children. In neither case was anyone protected by the prime minister or any 'rich well connected friends'.
I happen to think he is wrong on this as we were independent signatories of the EEA alongside all the other countries and the EU as a separate signatory.
Dr North was going to raise the question with Kristinn Árnason who is the current Secratary General of EFTA and who apparently he knows but I have not heard anything more on this at the moment.
If this is not structural reform then it may be relatively easier to agree
''The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".
The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA.''
Read into that what you will. But 'leading to an enlargement of the EEA' to me means we are in the EEA as separate from the EU. Thus we do not need to apply, we would be still in.
Frankly neither side wants to admit this since it weakens everyones argument. It weakens UKIP most I think since leaving the EU would make little difference.
Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995549/Labour-MP-Sarah-Champion-billed-taxpayer-17-poppy-wreath-Remembrance-Day.html
If ever there was a quango that needed well and truly burnt.
If the encounter between Clarkson and Tymon had been strictly verbal, then we would not be having this conversation. But it has been reported that the encounter left Tymon bleeding and requiring medical attention at Friarage Hospital in Northallerton.
So the statement "Clarkson and Savile both engaged in illegal activity requiring their underlings seeking medical attention whilst being protected by their rich well-connected friends and the Prime Minister" is technically true, if what has been reported in the papers is actually factual. I agree with you that the analogy is plainly disproportionate. But "disproportionate" and "untrue" are not the same thing..
I registered to vote recently in what will be my first GE... yet both seats I could legitimately have registered to vote in are very safe - North Essex (Bernard Jenkin) and Leyton and Wansted (John Cryer). No amount of tactical voting need even cross my mind. (Although I was a little surprised at Jenkin *only* being 1/12.)
Had Clarkson sexually assaulted seven-year-old BBC producers on a regular basis and been protected by the Establishment, you might have a case.
We accept you don't like Clarkson. I suspect some of the 900,000 (at the last count) who signed the petition aren't all fans, but think for a moment.
If Ed was suspended from the Labour party under any circumstances, would he get 900 or even 90 people to sign a petition to bring him back?
"Labour MP Sarah Champion billed the taxpayer £17 for a poppy wreath for Remembrance Day"
Does the Prime Minister buy his own wreathes every time he's required to plant one on various memorials? Do you think the Mail bothered to find out or do you think they just have a problem with Sarah Champion? Did you bother to find out before spreading this prejudicial story?
I got something of an insight into Mail practices when watching the TV appearance of Sarah Vine
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-31895703
"Given how much has been leaked from the BBC, though, presumably there is a point at which due process has failed and he isn't getting a fair disciplinary process?"
Well considering we've had comments from the Prime Minister downwards in defense of his old mucker not to menion a 600,000 petition before the BBC had opened their mouth I'd say they've acted with considerable though understandable restraint.
I would rather we didn't have them back thanks.
Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least
twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties.
Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
Mere statements of the obvious. He did not call for reinstatement etc.
I like Top Gear but the show has got a bit too repetitive recently. Perhaps it is time they all moved on and ended it now rather than jump the shark.
Clarkson was brilliant at his wartime docs, particularly the arctic convoy one.
https://vimeo.com/95372252
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-31895703
Instinctively I'm inclined to consider, as you do, clerical error.
Unfortunately if that's genuinely the case you get no public sympathy for blaming an underling afterwards either. So it's lose-lose for her.