Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
You're quite right there, Richard. I am a moderate eurosceptic and have a lot of issues with the EU. Currently, I'm planning to vote to stay in, but my ultimate vote will depend on the strength of the deal David Cameron negotiates and the arguments that both sides make. The extreme hostility many UKIP individuals seem to have to insulting everyone making a different argument is not exactly persuasive.
I'm in roughly the same place but tempted to vote No, so that Cameron / someone else can then go back with a big bloody stick and say It looks like we're leaving. If we go and do well, who stays, really? So this deal better improve and then we vote again.
I doubt if that will happen though.
Not going to happen, an out vote is an out vote.
If the country votes out then Cameron will resign (which he's committed to doing by the end of Parliament anyway) and we'd need a new Tory leader. In the context of the out vote the question in the leadership election would be how the new leader takes us out - not how we stay in.
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
I'm sorry, but asking other countries to have referendum to ratify treaty changes on behalf of us, that might not happen because we vote to leave is also completely impractical.
Imagine the Danish or Irish politician who stands up and says "we are going to spend €30m on a referendum to ratify treaty changes that might be null and void if the UK votes to leave in their referendum in six months time." He'd be laughed at.
It's our changes, and we have to decide if we want to stay after we negotiate a deal. No one is going to go to the trouble (and cost) of having a referendum if we are not going to stay.
As @Charles has pointed out many times on here before, the only way to do it is to explicitly time limit the period it has to be ratified in, say 48 months.
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Ummmm...
You can hardly use that against her. It's only 25 years since the very first commercial dial-up service launched in the US.
I first used the internet during my first year undergrad in 1994-95.
As was I. Mosaic wasnt particularly impressive. But then i discovered usenet. Imagine all the Tims of the world joined at once. A community of nutcases. All accessed through a telnet connection.
Regarding the House of Lords there's a simple solution. Rename it to something like House of Advisors and make it crystal clear that the purpose of the House is solely to amend the legislation the democratic chamber are passing. The Commons chooses what laws we introduce, the other place simply proposes with expertise amendments that the Commons can accept or reject.
Maintain if not strengthen all provisions of the Parliament Act.
Having been comprehensively beaten Murphy is still clinging on and is now starting to make the SLAB MSPs look weak by being scared to oust him. I think McTiernan thought he had a herd of sheep to push around, at least it looks like there are a couple anyway who are wolves in sheeps clothing:
On current polling SLAB would lose all 15 of its constituency seats and be left with 20 or so regional list seats. The competition for the list positioning is going to be fierce, if Murphy forces himself onto the list he is at risk of putting his career before both party and country. I do not expect that the likely loser MSPs would go quietly. The image of a party in complete disarray as we approach May 2016 will undoubtedly be punished at the ballot box.
Why is that impractical? It's what happens every time.
France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. The changes were then started again and wrapped up in the Lisbon treaty which was able to be ratified.
If someone rejected our deal then we'd look to either get it through or if it was blocked for good we'd have to have a new referendum I assume. We'd cross that bridge when we get to it - but I'm not sure why you'd expect a treaty change before a vote, that's never been how its worked.
And, even more to the point, the converse is much more the case. If we vote Out, it will be on the basis that the Out side say we can negotiate a favourable trade treaty with our EU friends. However, we won't have the faintest clue, not even the vaguest heads of terms, of what might be in such a treaty. Presumably those on the Out side aren't trying to claim that, if the trade treaty doesn't turn out as they promise, we should cancel leaving the EU (if that were even possible).
That's life. Voters will just have to make their minds up on the information they have.
There will need to be a credible plan to leave the EU either EFTA or an FTA. One of the reasons the Scottish referendum was unsuccessful was due to there being too many unknowns.
If we vote to remain in there also needs to be a credible plan for how we remain in the EU. There are huge structural problems with it which need to be addressed. If the EU moves towards ever closer union where does it leave us. They will not accept a two speed EU as it will only tempt those on the inside to move to the outside thus undermining ever closer union.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as th argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
And then in that case we return to the problem that a treaty change requires the agreement of all 28 countries. That is not going to happen by 2017 and certainly not by 2016 if Cameron's latest ruse is to be believed.
Any treaty change would have to be after a vote. Votes always come before the changes - we make a deal, the deal goes on to a vote and if accepted it gets implemented.
If any renegotiation requires ratification by member states, I can't think of a referendum question that would cope with the risk that, following UK ratification, the treaty changes then fall due to non-ratification elsewhere. Would there be another UK referendum or would the UK then give notice to leave? If the latter, what about those who would vote to stay in even without the treaty changes?
EDIT.. Doh, got behind the thread... question already posed...
Cameron could not elect loads of new Lords, because there is a limit on how many and when they can be appointed. Plus it relates to how many MP's they got. Labour and SNP would be also appointing a relevant number.
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
I'm sorry, but asking other countries to have referendum to ratify treaty changes on behalf of us, that might not happen because we vote to leave is also completely impractical.
Imagine the Danish or Irish politician who stands up and says "we are going to spend €30m on a referendum to ratify treaty changes that might be null and void if the UK votes to leave in their referendum in six months time." He'd be laughed at.
It's our changes, and we have to decide if we want to stay after we negotiate a deal. No one is going to go to the trouble (and cost) of having a referendum if we are not going to stay.
As @Charles has pointed out many times on here before, the only way to do it is to explicitly time limit the period it has to be ratified in, say 48 months.
Only a new treaty would provide us with the guarantees we would need to make sure that what we had been promised wasn't rolled back once we had voted to stay in. Otherwise frankly it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Cameron could not elect loads of new Lords, because there is a limit on how many and when they can be appointed. Plus it relates to how many MP's they got. Labour and SNP would be also appointing a relevant number.
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
Is this a statutory limit, or a convention? Didn't Asquith threaten to flood the chamber with new peers to get his budget through in 1909?
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
I'm sorry, but asking other countries to have referendum to ratify treaty changes on behalf of us, that might not happen because we vote to leave is also completely impractical.
Imagine the Danish or Irish politician who stands up and says "we are going to spend €30m on a referendum to ratify treaty changes that might be null and void if the UK votes to leave in their referendum in six months time." He'd be laughed at.
It's our changes, and we have to decide if we want to stay after we negotiate a deal. No one is going to go to the trouble (and cost) of having a referendum if we are not going to stay.
As @Charles has pointed out many times on here before, the only way to do it is to explicitly time limit the period it has to be ratified in, say 48 months.
Oh and what do you do when after 48 months a couple of countries have not ratified? The argument will simply start all over again.
They will not accept a two speed EU as it will only tempt those on the inside to move to the outside thus undermining ever closer union.
I'm not so sure about that (although I don't like the phrase 'two-speed', as it implies the same destination). We already have two very distinct rings: the inner Eurozone, and the non-Eurozone group, of which the UK is of course the dominant but not the only member. It is true, I think, that a few years ago the EU view was that eventually everyone would join the Euro, and the UK's anomalous position was a temporary little difficulty.
Since the Eurozone crisis, I believe that things are seen quite differently. It's quite clear now that the UK at least, and probably the other non-Eurozone countries, are never going to adopt the Euro. Furthermore it's clear that being over-zealous on insisting on Eurozone membership has been a disaster for the core as well as for the periphery, and it's also clear that the structural problems of the Eurozone are deep-seated and do need to be fixed. All that points in a direction of codifying the de-facto two-speed (or whatever we call it) Europe into something more coherent.
Our EU friends don't want the UK to leave, but also don't want to be dragged back (as they see it) by the UK. There's the essence of a deal there.
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
I'm sorry, but asking other countries to have referendum to ratify treaty changes on behalf of us, that might not happen because we vote to leave is also completely impractical.
Imagine the Danish or Irish politician who stands up and says "we are going to spend €30m on a referendum to ratify treaty changes that might be null and void if the UK votes to leave in their referendum in six months time." He'd be laughed at.
It's our changes, and we have to decide if we want to stay after we negotiate a deal. No one is going to go to the trouble (and cost) of having a referendum if we are not going to stay.
As @Charles has pointed out many times on here before, the only way to do it is to explicitly time limit the period it has to be ratified in, say 48 months.
Only a new treaty would provide us with the guarantees we would need to make sure that what we had been promised wasn't rolled back once we had voted to stay in. Otherwise frankly it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Think a new treaty has been ruled out, because of the number of countries requiring referendums and the possibility of these causing the EU to break up.
Cameron won't get any major changes and any minor changes will be agreed in a way that does not require any new EU wide treaty.
@davidjhgardiner: Ruth Davidson on Nicola Sturgeon "If I had a pound for every time she said 'Tories' today I'd be on her wages". #FMQs
she practicing for her career outside politics then or does she just think she is a comedian.
Scottish Tories hate folk mentioning the Tories, it reminds the electorate that they're Scottish...err...Tories.
Didn't Mr Mundell, now MP, sort of accidentally omit a ling word beginning with C from his election bumf?
Pretty sure it says "Conservative" in big letters on the ballot paper. Hard to miss that!
Point taken!
Of course, the word 'Scottish' is the only word that it is legal in the UK to use to falsely describe your party - e.g. Scottish Labour Party [sic]. However, that's not an issue with the SCUP.
Why is that impractical? It's what happens every time.
France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. The changes were then started again and wrapped up in the Lisbon treaty which was able to be ratified.
If someone rejected our deal then we'd look to either get it through or if it was blocked for good we'd have to have a new referendum I assume. We'd cross that bridge when we get to it - but I'm not sure why you'd expect a treaty change before a vote, that's never been how its worked.
And, even more to the point, the converse is much more the case. If we vote Out, it will be on the basis that the Out side say we can negotiate a favourable trade treaty with our EU friends. However, we won't have the faintest clue, not even the vaguest heads of terms, of what might be in such a treaty. Presumably those on the Out side aren't trying to claim that, if the trade treaty doesn't turn out as they promise, we should cancel leaving the EU (if that were even possible).
That's life. Voters will just have to make their minds up on the information they have.
I strongly suspect that this will be just another piece of good advice that will be thrown back in your face.
Cameron could not elect loads of new Lords, because there is a limit on how many and when they can be appointed. Plus it relates to how many MP's they got. Labour and SNP would be also appointing a relevant number.
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
Is this a statutory limit, or a convention? Didn't Asquith threaten to flood the chamber with new peers to get his budget through in 1909?
I think this was legislated for under Tony Blair and not just a convention. Othewise the government party could just flood the place and get all their legislation through.
Any treaty change would have to be after a vote. Votes always come before the changes - we make a deal, the deal goes on to a vote and if accepted it gets implemented.
If any renegotiation requires ratification by member states, I can't think of a referendum question that would cope with the risk that, following UK ratification, the treaty changes then fall due to non-ratification elsewhere. Would there be another UK referendum or would the UK then give notice to leave? If the latter, what about those who would vote to stay in even without the treaty changes?
EDIT.. Doh, got behind the thread... question already posed...
Since when has there ever been a guarantee?
There will be a proposal put forwards and we get to decide if we want the proposal or not. If we do work starts on implementing it. Same as any other election ever.
What guarantee did you have on Thursday that any parties manifesto would be implemented? What guarantee did the Scots have last year that there Indy proposals could be implemented? What guarantee would we have that any out proposals can be implemented?
A platform is offered and then we vote. Same as always.
Cameron could not elect loads of new Lords, because there is a limit on how many and when they can be appointed. Plus it relates to how many MP's they got. Labour and SNP would be also appointing a relevant number.
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
Is this a statutory limit, or a convention? Didn't Asquith threaten to flood the chamber with new peers to get his budget through in 1909?
I think this was legislated for under Tony Blair and not just a convention. Othewise the government party could just flood the place and get all their legislation through.
Cameron could not elect loads of new Lords, because there is a limit on how many and when they can be appointed. Plus it relates to how many MP's they got. Labour and SNP would be also appointing a relevant number.
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
Is this a statutory limit, or a convention? Didn't Asquith threaten to flood the chamber with new peers to get his budget through in 1909?
I think this was legislated for under Tony Blair and not just a convention. Othewise the government party could just flood the place and get all their legislation through.
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Ummmm...
You can hardly use that against her. It's only 25 years since the very first commercial dial-up service launched in the US.
I first used the internet during my first year undergrad in 1994-95.
As was I. Mosaic wasnt particularly impressive. But then i discovered usenet. Imagine all the Tims of the world joined at once. A community of nutcases. All accessed through a telnet connection.
Comments
If the country votes out then Cameron will resign (which he's committed to doing by the end of Parliament anyway) and we'd need a new Tory leader. In the context of the out vote the question in the leadership election would be how the new leader takes us out - not how we stay in.
Imagine the Danish or Irish politician who stands up and says "we are going to spend €30m on a referendum to ratify treaty changes that might be null and void if the UK votes to leave in their referendum in six months time." He'd be laughed at.
It's our changes, and we have to decide if we want to stay after we negotiate a deal. No one is going to go to the trouble (and cost) of having a referendum if we are not going to stay.
As @Charles has pointed out many times on here before, the only way to do it is to explicitly time limit the period it has to be ratified in, say 48 months.
order-order.com/2015/05/12/left-in-a-vacant-libdem-office-in-parliament/#_@/ho1To1LxqiDVXg
Maintain if not strengthen all provisions of the Parliament Act.
Stop sending party apparatchiks to the House.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-rowley-quits-scottish-labour-shadow-cabinet-1-3770347
On current polling SLAB would lose all 15 of its constituency seats and be left with 20 or so regional list seats. The competition for the list positioning is going to be fierce, if Murphy forces himself onto the list he is at risk of putting his career before both party and country. I do not expect that the likely loser MSPs would go quietly. The image of a party in complete disarray as we approach May 2016 will undoubtedly be punished at the ballot box.
If we vote to remain in there also needs to be a credible plan for how we remain in the EU. There are huge structural problems with it which need to be addressed. If the EU moves towards ever closer union where does it leave us. They will not accept a two speed EU as it will only tempt those on the inside to move to the outside thus undermining ever closer union.
EDIT.. Doh, got behind the thread... question already posed...
Interesting article IMO:
"The cult of youth cheats young and old alike. Let's reclaim adulthood
We’ve created a world in which growing up – let alone growing elderly – is something nobody would reasonably choose"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/may/12/the-cult-of-youth-cheats-young-and-old-alike-lets-reclaim-adulthood
The House of Lords will block and amend quite a lot of legislation. Therefore I suspect that the parliament act will be used more often than before, as I don't think Cameron would be that bothered about causing any constitutional crisis.
Since the Eurozone crisis, I believe that things are seen quite differently. It's quite clear now that the UK at least, and probably the other non-Eurozone countries, are never going to adopt the Euro. Furthermore it's clear that being over-zealous on insisting on Eurozone membership has been a disaster for the core as well as for the periphery, and it's also clear that the structural problems of the Eurozone are deep-seated and do need to be fixed. All that points in a direction of codifying the de-facto two-speed (or whatever we call it) Europe into something more coherent.
Our EU friends don't want the UK to leave, but also don't want to be dragged back (as they see it) by the UK. There's the essence of a deal there.
Cameron won't get any major changes and any minor changes will be agreed in a way that does not require any new EU wide treaty.
Of course, the word 'Scottish' is the only word that it is legal in the UK to use to falsely describe your party - e.g. Scottish Labour Party [sic]. However, that's not an issue with the SCUP.
There will be a proposal put forwards and we get to decide if we want the proposal or not. If we do work starts on implementing it. Same as any other election ever.
What guarantee did you have on Thursday that any parties manifesto would be implemented?
What guarantee did the Scots have last year that there Indy proposals could be implemented?
What guarantee would we have that any out proposals can be implemented?
A platform is offered and then we vote. Same as always.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-library/hllreformchronology.pdf
those were the days....