If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.
That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.
Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.
I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.
All recent evidence suggests that Nigel Farage's top priority is to look after the personal interest of Farage, N.
If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.
That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.
Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.
I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.
Suzanne Evans was making all the right noises yesterday on that front.
Cameron has shot himself in the foot saying he won't serve a third term. He'll go for an early referendum because he'll be "lame duck" PM as the next election approaches.and he wants to have some time to achieve something.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
Cameron has shot himself in the foot saying he won't serve a third term. He'll go for an early referendum because he'll be "lame duck" PM as the next election approaches.and he wants to have some time to achieve something.
England are now sixth favourites to host the 2022 World Cup following today's developments with the USA among the leading pack to replace Qatar. Ladbrokes have the 1994 hosts at 3/1 to stage the tournament.
Who will host the 2022 World Cup? Here are the latest odds: Qatar 1/6, USA 3/1, Australia 8/1, Germany 12/1, South Korea 25/1, England 25/1, Japan 33/1.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
A withdrawalist government could be elected on an absurdly low vote share. I agree it would be unreasonable to treat that as a mandate for leaving, in the same way an SNP win at Holyrood isn't a mandate for independence.
Mr. Eagles, Qatar's the only sensible choice, for many reasons: 1) Won an entirely fair and reasonable vote. 2) Well-known football heritage. 3) Renowned reputation for workers' rights and fair pay. 4) Excellent collection of existing stadia. 5) Laws on alcohol and homosexual equality guaranteed to result in a gay old time. 6) Huge number of moderately priced hotels so all fans can afford to go. 7) Mild and pleasant summers.
RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..
Why? They were in 1975.
Richard remind me the scenario you believe will happen: Cam goes to renegotiate, gets nothing, lies that he has got something, voters believe him?
I am not being facetious, the scenario you painted for me a while ago was quite plausible (involving, that said, Cam lying) but I can't quite remember the constituent parts.
Rather more nuanced than that but in effect yes that is what I believe will happen.
The EU will play ball with Cameron and allow him some cosmetic changes so he can claim a real victory. He will be supported in this, probably begrudgingly, by the Opposition and most people will see the headlines of 'Cameron defeats EU'. As has been pointed out often on here before, most people don't have the first idea of how the EU operates and how fluid any concessions will turn out to be. They see things as hard and fast, black and white. It is basic human nature.
By the time it becomes obvious the UK actually got nothing out of the deal the referendum will have been won and, more importantly for Cameron, he will be heading for the exit anyway. It will probably not bother him that much that the Tory party is condemned to another few decades of infighting over the EU. He really does strike me as the direct inheritor of the mantle of Heath in that respect.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
To be fair, he hasn't yet negotiated or represented everything.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..
Why? They were in 1975.
That's not fair, Wilson achieved genuine concessions for Caribbean sugar producers.
The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.
So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.
Will the EU play ball?
The EU is great at avoiding immediate trouble without addressing underlying issues, so I'm sure they will. They just need the bureaucrats to rein in their contempt for britains position for a bit. Preventing the more pro EU leaders and ex leaders from doing so may be more difficult
Bureaucrats aren't the problem here. The problem is elected leaders of other countries, their parliaments and ultimately their voters. If the British want to take back their side of deals made 10, 20 or 30 years ago, they're going to want to know what they're going to get in return.
Think of it the other way around: Say the Front National win in France and they want to restrict the ability of British banks to sell to French customers. The British would obviously say, "If you're going to do that, we're not paying for your farmers". A renegotiation is a _negotiation_.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He's going to find areas of common interest - such as welfare - for the major voting blocs and focus on those
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
To be fair, he hasn't yet negotiated or represented everything.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
To be fair he wont have time to negotiate anything to represent by 2016 so its already looking like a sham. Nothing at all will be in a treaty in that time frame, it will just be a political agreement, and so will be subject to be whittled away by the ECJ
Incidentally, regarding even solid opt outs, the Working Time Directive is instructive. It was part of the social chapter for which we had an opt out which we exercised. Recently it was decided it was actually a health and safety issue, for which we have no opt out.
If its not in a ratified treaty, its worthless - words are wind!
Makes sense to have it sooner, but could unleash forces he can't control. Like defections to UKIP in the event of defeat.
I think that threat has lost a lot of its potency.......
Like the Nats, the Outers will only ever be happy with one outcome - so getting it out of the way quickly, so what remains of his term can focus on things the majority really care about - like the economy, taxation, jobs, the NHS, housing and education makes sense.
LOL, Take off those blue tinted specs now and again.
If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.
That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.
Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.
I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.
Suzanne Evans was making all the right noises yesterday on that front.
Carswell would make a good figurehead too.
For all that I like him more than almost any other politician because of his wider manifesto for democratic reforms, I think Carswell would be a bad choice because he is so intimately linked in the public perception with UKIP. If we must have a politician it would be far better for it to be from one of the parties that are generally considered pro rather than anti-EU. It would help to widen the debate away from narrow party politics.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
To be fair, he hasn't yet negotiated or represented everything.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
Nope. I just believe he hasn't given himself enough time for any genuine change to be achieved. He didn't have enough time with a 2017 referendum let alone 2016.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.
England are now sixth favourites to host the 2022 World Cup following today's developments
If England do get to be 2022 hosts, and Cameron manages to claim the credit, that may give him a small temporary poll boost. However, if the selection process is rerun, but England still lose Cameron will probably still get some of the blame.
If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.
That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.
Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.
I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.
Suzanne Evans was making all the right noises yesterday on that front.
Carswell would make a good figurehead too.
For all that I like him more than almost any other politician because of his wider manifesto for democratic reforms, I think Carswell would be a bad choice because he is so intimately linked in the public perception with UKIP. If we must have a politician it would be far better for it to be from one of the parties that are generally considered pro rather than anti-EU. It would help to widen the debate away from narrow party politics.
I agree. The campaign needs someone with oratory and persuasive skills, and a forensic mind for picking apart bullshit on interviews and debates. Dan Hannan is the man.
If we have anything to learn from the Scottish referendum, the biggest potential beneficiaries are UKIP, which will be the only party in a position to argue loudly and proudly for No. In this they may well be supported noisily by the likes of the Mail, Express and perhaps the Sun? That will potentially give them a pretty sound platform for 2020. In the event of a No vote on what will be very modest political gains I can only see a downside for The Tories.
That depends on who are the persuadables. If the persuadables are northern working class socially conservative erstwhile Labour voters, the downside might be Labour's.
Those on the Out side need to decide early whether they are going to let UKIP own it in the way that the SNP owned Yes. If UKIP own Out, it will be very good for UKIP and very bad for Out.
I would hope that UKIP would realise that having an OUT leader who was not UKIP and could appeal to a wide audience - like Frank Field or Kate Hoey from Labour or Dan Hannan from the Tories or better still a senior business figure like Dyson - would vastly improve the chances for BOO. However I am not convinced at the moment that Farage would put BOO ahead of narrow party interests.
All recent evidence suggests that Nigel Farage's top priority is to look after the personal interest of Farage, N.
I am sorry to say that I think you are right. My only vain hope is that he is actually arrogant enough to believe he is the messiah rather than just being a very naughty (and self serving) boy. At least that would show his heart was in the right place even if his mind is away with the fairies.
"Sure. I've no doubt that the EU will be obliging in making friendly noises - they are all used to the business of letting each other claim great victories. They have no intention of major change, but are quite happy to enable Cameron to say it's in the wind."
I'm sure you're right and that's why I think IN will win. The only problem is the odd Eurocrat with a loose mouth. Prodi (an ex-Eurocrat) was loose on R5L a couple of weeks ago and talking Political union or piss off.
England are now sixth favourites to host the 2022 World Cup following today's developments with the USA among the leading pack to replace Qatar. Ladbrokes have the 1994 hosts at 3/1 to stage the tournament.
Who will host the 2022 World Cup? Here are the latest odds: Qatar 1/6, USA 3/1, Australia 8/1, Germany 12/1, South Korea 25/1, England 25/1, Japan 33/1.
RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..
Why? They were in 1975.
Richard remind me the scenario you believe will happen: Cam goes to renegotiate, gets nothing, lies that he has got something, voters believe him?
I am not being facetious, the scenario you painted for me a while ago was quite plausible (involving, that said, Cam lying) but I can't quite remember the constituent parts.
Rather more nuanced than that but in effect yes that is what I believe will happen.
The EU will play ball with Cameron and allow him some cosmetic changes so he can claim a real victory. He will be supported in this, probably begrudgingly, by the Opposition and most people will see the headlines of 'Cameron defeats EU'. As has been pointed out often on here before, most people don't have the first idea of how the EU operates and how fluid any concessions will turn out to be. They see things as hard and fast, black and white. It is basic human nature.
By the time it becomes obvious the UK actually got nothing out of the deal the referendum will have been won and, more importantly for Cameron, he will be heading for the exit anyway. It will probably not bother him that much that the Tory party is condemned to another few decades of infighting over the EU. He really does strike me as the direct inheritor of the mantle of Heath in that respect.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
To be fair, he hasn't yet negotiated or represented everything.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
Nope. I just believe he hasn't given himself enough time for any genuine change to be achieved. He didn't have enough time with a 2017 referendum let alone 2016.
More likely the negotiations are relatively nearly complete already. Cameron's been PM for five years, do you seriously think he's not spoken to Merkel before? The key to negotiate is to know what each party wants and what is or is not achievable.
The idea that we're starting with a blank sheet of paper is silly. I expect the four areas that Cameron said he'd renegotiate before the election to be those he'd already got the green light for.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
As I have noted before, for all that I am wanting to leave the EU, I don't believe it is democratic to claim that a Parliament elected on the basis of a full suite of manifesto promises can say it has the right to make such a huge constitutional change without specifically asking the electorate.
And it is not a question of each side lying about what the effect of staying in/withdrawal will be. It is about the specific point of Cameron misrepresenting what reforms he has achieved.
To be fair, he hasn't yet negotiated or represented everything.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
Nope. I just believe he hasn't given himself enough time for any genuine change to be achieved. He didn't have enough time with a 2017 referendum let alone 2016.
More likely the negotiations are relatively nearly complete already. Cameron's been PM for five years, do you seriously think he's not spoken to Merkel before? The key to negotiate is to know what each party wants and what is or is not achievable.
The idea that we're starting with a blank sheet of paper is silly. I expect the four areas that Cameron said he'd renegotiate before the election to be those he'd already got the green light for.
It is not just a question of the actual negotiations as I have said all along. It is a case of getting it approved and ratified in an enforceable and meaningful way by all 28 countries. With an activist and legislating ECJ we will quickly see any concessions being whittled away as both countries and individuals with a right of appeal to the ECJ exercise that right.
Again, the ECJ is bound by its constitution to act in favour of the principle of ever closer union. They will undoubtedly use that as a means of undermining any opt outs or concessions we might obtain as they have already done.
RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..
Why? They were in 1975.
Not really fair. You certainly can't compare the 1975 referendum to the picture today as since then Parliament has passed many new treaties that had nothing to do with the 75 referendum. The issue with that isn't that they weren't discussed in 75 as they weren't agreed then. The issue is that there was no new referendum each time a new treaty was passed. It's the Parliaments that passed those further treaties from Thatcher on that carry responsibility for that not Heath.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
RT Why is it moronic..one man ..one vote Why you should continue to think the entire nation would be swayed by Camerons opinion is the moronic argument.
The idea that people are not swayed by what political leaders say is simply fatuous and moronic. If - or rather when- Cameron claims to have got a great victory over the EU then it will certainly sway many people. All the m
In will almost certainly win. But it might do so narrowly rather than comprehensively.
A 53-47 victory fore "In" would certainly not settle the issue for a generation, and whilst fighting for an outright victory it's that outcome that Out must seek to maximise.
On an aside, I'm been surprised at just how many Tories I know have told me they're 'definitely out', and some old pro-euro Tories in the late 90s/early 00s are now 'probably in, but persuadable'.
The EU is great at avoiding immediate trouble without addressing underlying issues, so I'm sure they will. They just need the bureaucrats to rein in their contempt for britains position for a bit. Preventing the more pro EU leaders and ex leaders from doing so may be more difficult
Bureaucrats aren't the problem here. The problem is elected leaders of other countries, their parliaments and ultimately their voters. If the British want to take back their side of deals made 10, 20 or 30 years ago, they're going to want to know what they're going to get in return.
Think of it the other way around: Say the Front National win in France and they want to restrict the ability of British banks to sell to French customers. The British would obviously say, "If you're going to do that, we're not paying for your farmers". A renegotiation is a _negotiation_.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
When I say EU leaders I mean both bureaucrats and heads of government who are ardently pro-eu - hence the bit about current and ex leaders to specify the government heads will be more trouble than bureaucrats on this one, as they have less incentive to keep their contempt quiet for the period,as they will be the ones who need to consent to things more.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
My personal expectations based on the manifesto and what has been said in the press is that the following are achievable.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years). 2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union" 3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
Wiggo should be more like 1-10/1-20 to break the hour record rather than 2-9, that 5-10% being a pulled muscle (rarer on a bike than running) or a mechanical (unlikely in a controlled velodrome enviroment).
If he gets round, he breaks the record. I'm in for a ton.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
My personal expectations based on the manifesto and what has been said in the press is that the following are achievable.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years). 2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union" 3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?
I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.
That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.
Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.
It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
I hope that this will be the last referendum, except on issues of statehood (though I guess some BOOers see this referendum in those terms and would like a question of the form "Should Britain become and independent country free of the EU?")
I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
No it isn't. The idea that you need "a campaign" is a fiction of the marketing/advertising industry, and led to the greatest unanswered conundrum of the Indyref - what is Alistair Darling actually for? Because the Indyref was clearly Salmond vs the world/the forces of evil/David Cameron, not a Yes campaign vs a No campaign (and who was Blair Jenkins anyway?) We are much better off with people individually arguing the points they think are important, not pretendy "campaigns".
My position - I suspect a common one at this stage - is that I have a fairly clear idea of how I want things to be, but no idea and no strong preference as to whether that state of affairs would count as In but with huge modifications, or Out.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
FIFA: fervently hoping Teflon Blatter gets his comeuppance. History tells us that is not likely, however.
If you dropped that man in a cess-pool, made him walk 20 miles through a mangrove swamp, followed by a double-shift at an abattoir, and he'd still come out without so much of a speck of dust on him.
Since the referendum result depends on the outcome of negotiations then I do not see that 2016 or 2017 makes any difference to either side. Now that Labour have agreed the public want a referendum then there is little political downside for Cameron and the Tories holding one early. If lost they would have time to negotiate our way out and into the EEA. It is right that there is a deadline, but I am not sure that 2016 will be too soon. However all this gives the lie to the claim that Cameron was not serious. Perhaps now that Labour have agreed to the idea then an earlier date can be achieved.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
My personal expectations based on the manifesto and what has been said in the press is that the following are achievable.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years). 2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union" 3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
And the concessions will be...
The three I just said.
Tighter access to benefits for migrants is a concession that is very achievable as Merkel wants the same concession.
There may be others but all three of those would be concessions and I'd be happy with those. Under current QMV voting the eurozone voting as a bloc can rewrite any Single Market laws (and of course under Lisbon that Labour passed without a referendum QMV was extended to more areas). To fix that would be a major change and a considerable achievement.
Though I expect even if Cameron achieved all this (or some other package) there'd be people banging on about how he got nothing. Some people won't be happy with anything.
The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.
So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.
Will the EU play ball?
Control of the borders means no EEA. Is this what BOOers are campaigning for? It is not just the BOIers who are not entirely certain what they will be voting for.
TBH all this BOI and BOI and EFTA/EEA is a load of horse sh*t that will be understood by about 1% of the people voting in the referendum. The man on the Clapham omnibus will be interested in on one side his job and savings, and on the other side immigration/sovereignty/borders. The referendum will be won on lost on that basis, not on the basis of a lot of Euro-acronyms the voters will neither have heard no cared about.
If the question in the public's mind becomes "will my job be safe" or "will my savings lose value" then IN will win. If it becomes "who controls our borders" or "too much immigration too fast" or "whose country is this anyway ?" then OUT will win.
If it is about border control and immigration then BOOers cannot pretend that the EEA is an option. One problem of the indyref was the Yes campaign promising independence with access to the UK checquebook, which was not credible. BOOers need to learn from this and not promise a trade deal or EFTA/EEA deal that is not on the table.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
My personal expectations based on the manifesto and what has been said in the press is that the following are achievable.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years). 2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union" 3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
And the concessions will be...
1. Germany gets to apply tighter access to benefits foe EU migrants 2/3 Creation of a mechanism that allows the Eurozone to integrate while having a group of affiliate members that don't have veto rights over the Eurozone
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years). 2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union" 3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
Actually I don't disagree - I mean:
(1) would be possible anyhow by moving to a contributory system and can probably be done with QMV. I mean hell, the British could just change things at their end and say the EU agreed to it.
And there's a fair bit of scope to improve the way the EU handles benefits anyhow. For example, if somebody's living in Britain on disability benefits and can't work, it might make sense for them to move to a nice beach-front property in Greece where they can get cheaper care, but the Greeks obviously aren't going to want to get lumbered with the bill for this, so it sounds like the whole thing could be made to work better. Normally this is the kind of thing the British would veto, but in this context maybe they can sell it as a negotiating triumph.
That said, 4 years is utterly mad since presumably these people are paying in all this time, I doubt it would be that long. The British wouldn't want to do it anyway, because it'll encourage people to hide from the system, so they'll lose out on revenue.
(2) is entirely meaningless, so who cares? Everyone could promise not to cuddle the British too tight or something. Although doing it formally would require a treaty change, which won't happen.
(3) is the kind of thing you'd do in the next treaty as the quid-pro-quo for the British passing it, and presumably people could pinky-swear not to gang up on non-Euro members in the meantime, since in reality they were never going to do that in the first place. Long-term the problem is that if you don't know how many non-Euro members there are going to be, it's hard to know how to write rules around it.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
Please, if we're comparing Salmond to notorious Germans, he'd be someone you'd associate with the Waffen Yes Yes, or the Yestapo, so I'm going for Himmler, Dietrich or Göring
Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?
I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.
That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.
Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.
It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
I hope that this will be the last referendum, except on issues of statehood (though I guess some BOOers see this referendum in those terms and would like a question of the form "Should Britain become and independent country free of the EU?")
I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.
The Chartists only unmet demand is annual parliaments! I would be happy for 20% of seats to be up each year.
When I say EU leaders I mean both bureaucrats and heads of government who are ardently pro-eu - hence the bit about current and ex leaders to specify the government heads will be more trouble than bureaucrats on this one, as they have less incentive to keep their contempt quiet for the period,as they will be the ones who need to consent to things more.
It's not the "ardently pro-EU" thing either though. The hurdle is national interests. For example, the president of Poland is a member of Cameron's group in the EU parliament, but if Cameron wants to mess with free movement or benefits then he's going to stick up for the interests of Polish nationals.
The campaign will be more heat than light. The real issues are control of borders and more particularly for the result, whether we proceed to political union. The latter point is the issue for those who will decide the vote.
So I expect the Federalists to downplay any plans for union while keeping their fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.
Will the EU play ball?
Control of the borders means no EEA. Is this what BOOers are campaigning for? It is not just the BOIers who are not entirely certain what they will be voting for.
TBH all this BOI and BOI and EFTA/EEA is a load of horse sh*t that will be understood by about 1% of the people voting in the referendum. The man on the Clapham omnibus will be interested in on one side his job and savings, and on the other side immigration/sovereignty/borders. The referendum will be won on lost on that basis, not on the basis of a lot of Euro-acronyms the voters will neither have heard no cared about.
If the question in the public's mind becomes "will my job be safe" or "will my savings lose value" then IN will win. If it becomes "who controls our borders" or "too much immigration too fast" or "whose country is this anyway ?" then OUT will win.
If it is about border control and immigration then BOOers cannot pretend that the EEA is an option. One problem of the indyref was the Yes campaign promising independence with access to the UK checquebook, which was not credible. BOOers need to learn from this and not promise a trade deal or EFTA/EEA deal that is not on the table.
Exactly. A move to EFTA/EEA will win the votes of some rather intelligent people who debate the minutae of this but will lose the immigration argument that is the main argument of UKIP.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
Oh go on Divvie, give us some top table stuff for old time's sake, you know we miss it. :-)
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
Please, if we're comparing Salmond to notorious Germans, he'd be someone you'd associate with the Waffen Yes Yes, or the Yestapo, so I'm going for Himmler, Dietrich or Göring
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
Please, if we're comparing Salmond to notorious Germans, he'd be someone you'd associate with the Waffen Yes Yes, or the Yestapo, so I'm going for Himmler, Dietrich or Göring
(2) is entirely meaningless, so who cares? Everyone could promise not to cuddle the British too tight or something. Although doing it formally would require a treaty change, which won't happen.
Any treaty change would only ever happen after a referendum, referendums always happen before changes. We could sign an agreement on text that will be included in the next treaty change.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
#gobshite
No , just that Cameron is a dumpling and he will get run rings round by the smart Europeans and come back waving a sheet of paper saying "Peace in our time". History will just repeat , the Germans will make donkeys of our elite effetes.
PS , if he had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
So all countries lose by us leaving? The recipients gain less (and they can ill afford to gain less) while the contributors pay more (and they're already fed up of paying for Greece etc as the eurozone contributors are having to).
Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?
I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.
That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.
Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.
It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
I hope that this will be the last referendum, except on issues of statehood (though I guess some BOOers see this referendum in those terms and would like a question of the form "Should Britain become and independent country free of the EU?")
I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.
The Chartists only unmet demand is annual parliaments! I would be happy for 20% of seats to be up each year.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
#gobshite
No , just that Cameron is a dumpling and he will get run rings round by the smart Europeans and come back waving a sheet of paper saying "Peace in our time". History will just repeat , the Germans will make donkeys of our elite effetes.
PS , if he had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
Except Alex lost a referendum you were insisting would be won.
Or did you always think Alex was going to lose the referendum by 10%?
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Their campaign for an In vote will be completely separate. I'd say it's also pretty likely they will take the night off during the count.
Word play, my friend, they have common cause working for the same result.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
However there are risks whichever way you look at it. Will Cameron want to rile middle England standing alongside the man he so recently depicted picking their pockets? Otoh if you accept the line that Salmond is a veritable Mephistopheles, riling ME might suit him very well; England voting out & Scotland in would be an optimal result for Scottish indy.
Please, if we're comparing Salmond to notorious Germans, he'd be someone you'd associate with the Waffen Yes Yes, or the Yestapo, so I'm going for Himmler, Dietrich or Göring
Let him who is not an underling of Stormfront Lite cast the first stone.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
#gobshite
No , just that Cameron is a dumpling and he will get run rings round by the smart Europeans and come back waving a sheet of paper saying "Peace in our time". History will just repeat , the Germans will make donkeys of our elite effetes.
PS , if he had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
malc
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
A man that desperate to roll over for his Luxemburg masters will negotiate nothing.
Unlike the General Election, everyone's vote is going to count equally in this one. That means we're all going to have to properly think about our vote !
Saw Stephen Kinnock being interviewed on SKY earlier. I've already taken an intense dislike to this pale, spotty son of Kinnock. He was coming out with the usual soundbites like the Queen's Speeech was already an 'omnishambles.' You just have to despair at these characters, it just seems more of the same.
I can understand the politics behind this on one level - Cameron knows his chance of getting the Referendum through is to hold it while his personal trust level and that of the Government remains high. I always thought it strange late 2017 was being considered as that would be in mid-term when Governments are unpopular and the desire to give the Prime Minister a kick would be at its highest.
Cameron and Conservative strategists have recognised they have a possibly 18-month honeymoon period (though plenty can go wrong) when the message "Trust Dave" will still have resonance.
I'm more annoyed by this concept that if you are vote No to the renegotiated package you are voting to leave the EU. This is appalling and illogical in the extreme. I may not like the renegotiated terms but that doesn't imply I want the UK to leave the EU. I might hold the view that the mad woman up the street who shouts at cats could have got a better package than the Prime Minister but this concept of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is just absurd.
My understanding was there were two scenarios - either Cameron comes back with renegotiated terms of membership on which we vote. IF these terms are rejected, Cameron (assuming he survives) either seeks to amend those terms or we move to a straight In/Out vote on the current terms.
The alternative is Cameron fails to get terms and we simply have an In/Out referendum.
I fully expect the Prime Minister to return to Heathrow and say "I have on my Ipad Mini an email digitally signed by Frau Merkel which provides for continued UK membership of the EU in our time" but to reject that is not to endorse leaving the EU and it is disingenuous to mix the two though I understand it politically.
I suspect Cameron is relying on his personal charisma and a whipped up hysteria over the consequences of withdrawal to carry the day but it's a risk and Farage's grenade might yet blow up in Cameron's face if people either decide to kick Cameron or that there's much less downside to EU withdrawal than suspected.
Saw Stephen Kinnock being interviewed on SKY earlier. I've already taken an intense dislike to this pale, spotty son of Kinnock. He was coming out with the usual soundbites like the Queen's Speeech was already an 'omnishambles.' You just have to despair at these characters, it just seems more of the same.
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Walking down Whitehall the other day, I finally realised the significance of your moniker.
@guardian_clark: The 1975 Q: Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?. Wilson, Salmond & Cam all grasp the power of Yes
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Like any good Presbyterian, I'm an expert on repressing unnatural urges.
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Walking down Whitehall the other day, I finally realised the significance of your moniker.
Yes, I am very slow.
Your other half should have pointed that out a while ago.
Btw any big wedding plans ? I hope you've claimed your Irish passport. :-)
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
So all countries lose by us leaving? The recipients gain less (and they can ill afford to gain less) while the contributors pay more (and they're already fed up of paying for Greece etc as the eurozone contributors are having to).
Yup, exactly. They lose a meaningful but not mind-boggling amount. It's about £25 a head, although it'll vary a bit from country to country.
More generally, when you hear a large number from a politician, it's normally best to do what a couple of people up-thread have objected to me doing and divide by the affected population to get it in perspective. This isn't particularly a trick to make it seem smaller - it's just the best way to see what the number means. If it's really a big number, it'll sound big when you imagine yourself paying it.
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Walking down Whitehall the other day, I finally realised the significance of your moniker.
Yes, I am very slow.
Your other half should have pointed that out a while ago.
Btw any big wedding plans ? I hope you've claimed your Irish passport. :-)
The wedding will wait until my other half decides he can be bothered (I suspect it will involve a big party of some sort somewhere nice). I've gone off the idea of getting an Irish passport ever since I found out that I still couldn't be Irish president even if I got one.
I'd make a very good president of Ireland. I'm quite sure I could unite Ireland (in its dislike of me).
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Like any good Presbyterian, I'm an expert on repressing unnatural urges.
LOL nice to see the Catholics haven't got a monopoly.
Anyhoo, must go off to rebalance the economy since Osborne's doing bugger all about it.
Comments
Carswell would make a good figurehead too.
Who will host the 2022 World Cup? Here are the latest odds: Qatar 1/6, USA 3/1, Australia 8/1, Germany 12/1, South Korea 25/1, England 25/1, Japan 33/1.
1) Won an entirely fair and reasonable vote.
2) Well-known football heritage.
3) Renowned reputation for workers' rights and fair pay.
4) Excellent collection of existing stadia.
5) Laws on alcohol and homosexual equality guaranteed to result in a gay old time.
6) Huge number of moderately priced hotels so all fans can afford to go.
7) Mild and pleasant summers.
The EU will play ball with Cameron and allow him some cosmetic changes so he can claim a real victory. He will be supported in this, probably begrudgingly, by the Opposition and most people will see the headlines of 'Cameron defeats EU'. As has been pointed out often on here before, most people don't have the first idea of how the EU operates and how fluid any concessions will turn out to be. They see things as hard and fast, black and white. It is basic human nature.
By the time it becomes obvious the UK actually got nothing out of the deal the referendum will have been won and, more importantly for Cameron, he will be heading for the exit anyway. It will probably not bother him that much that the Tory party is condemned to another few decades of infighting over the EU. He really does strike me as the direct inheritor of the mantle of Heath in that respect.
Your argument simply boils down to 'you don't like or trust Cameron'
Incidentally, regarding even solid opt outs, the Working Time Directive is instructive. It was part of the social chapter for which we had an opt out which we exercised. Recently it was decided it was actually a health and safety issue, for which we have no opt out.
If its not in a ratified treaty, its worthless - words are wind!
"Sure. I've no doubt that the EU will be obliging in making friendly noises - they are all used to the business of letting each other claim great victories. They have no intention of major change, but are quite happy to enable Cameron to say it's in the wind."
I'm sure you're right and that's why I think IN will win. The only problem is the odd Eurocrat with a loose mouth. Prodi (an ex-Eurocrat) was loose on R5L a couple of weeks ago and talking Political union or piss off.
Could be good for Labour if she wins. Might even be good for the country having a Labour leader who might not be a Milibandite socialist.
The idea that we're starting with a blank sheet of paper is silly. I expect the four areas that Cameron said he'd renegotiate before the election to be those he'd already got the green light for.
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
Again, the ECJ is bound by its constitution to act in favour of the principle of ever closer union. They will undoubtedly use that as a means of undermining any opt outs or concessions we might obtain as they have already done.
Running two separate "yes" campaigns with differing messages is fraught with risk. Cameron and Sturgeon are on the same side. When it comes to the EU, the SNP are part of the political establishment.
1: Tighter access to benefits for EU migrants (eg for first four years).
2: An opt-out for the UK from further "Ever Closer Union"
3: Safeguards that changes to the Single Market can't be made by the eurozone voting as a bloc.
Number 3 is the one I think will be the most challenging but would be a considerable achievement if made.
Wiggo should be more like 1-10/1-20 to break the hour record rather than 2-9, that 5-10% being a pulled muscle (rarer on a bike than running) or a mechanical (unlikely in a controlled velodrome enviroment).
If he gets round, he breaks the record. I'm in for a ton.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/the-most-amazing-thing-about-dowsetts-hour-he-could-have-gone-faster-169585 <- He won't be making the same "errors" (Taking 4 laps to get to speed, speeding up/slowing down) as Dowsett with his experience.
I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.
My position - I suspect a common one at this stage - is that I have a fairly clear idea of how I want things to be, but no idea and no strong preference as to whether that state of affairs would count as In but with huge modifications, or Out.
If you dropped that man in a cess-pool, made him walk 20 miles through a mangrove swamp, followed by a double-shift at an abattoir, and he'd still come out without so much of a speck of dust on him.
It is right that there is a deadline, but I am not sure that 2016 will be too soon. However all this gives the lie to the claim that Cameron was not serious. Perhaps now that Labour have agreed to the idea then an earlier date can be achieved.
Tighter access to benefits for migrants is a concession that is very achievable as Merkel wants the same concession.
There may be others but all three of those would be concessions and I'd be happy with those. Under current QMV voting the eurozone voting as a bloc can rewrite any Single Market laws (and of course under Lisbon that Labour passed without a referendum QMV was extended to more areas). To fix that would be a major change and a considerable achievement.
Though I expect even if Cameron achieved all this (or some other package) there'd be people banging on about how he got nothing. Some people won't be happy with anything.
2/3 Creation of a mechanism that allows the Eurozone to integrate while having a group of affiliate members that don't have veto rights over the Eurozone
(1) would be possible anyhow by moving to a contributory system and can probably be done with QMV. I mean hell, the British could just change things at their end and say the EU agreed to it.
And there's a fair bit of scope to improve the way the EU handles benefits anyhow. For example, if somebody's living in Britain on disability benefits and can't work, it might make sense for them to move to a nice beach-front property in Greece where they can get cheaper care, but the Greeks obviously aren't going to want to get lumbered with the bill for this, so it sounds like the whole thing could be made to work better. Normally this is the kind of thing the British would veto, but in this context maybe they can sell it as a negotiating triumph.
That said, 4 years is utterly mad since presumably these people are paying in all this time, I doubt it would be that long. The British wouldn't want to do it anyway, because it'll encourage people to hide from the system, so they'll lose out on revenue.
(2) is entirely meaningless, so who cares? Everyone could promise not to cuddle the British too tight or something. Although doing it formally would require a treaty change, which won't happen.
(3) is the kind of thing you'd do in the next treaty as the quid-pro-quo for the British passing it, and presumably people could pinky-swear not to gang up on non-Euro members in the meantime, since in reality they were never going to do that in the first place. Long-term the problem is that if you don't know how many non-Euro members there are going to be, it's hard to know how to write rules around it.
#gobshite
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
PS , if he had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGAIhWPW8AAAYM5.png
Or did you always think Alex was going to lose the referendum by 10%?
Oh, wait...
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
A man that desperate to roll over for his Luxemburg masters will negotiate nothing.
I suspect, however, that Cameron's perceived middle-ground position will see him lead In to victory.
Bit surprised that Yes = In, though. Was AV's ballot paper phrased as Yes/No?
I think a lot of EU-philes and EU-sceptics will be near certain to turn out and vote Aye or Nay. Turnout will be interesting.
pic.twitter.com/Vas7DT0rGC
Tim Shipman retweeted ♪ Rusty ♫
FIFA has a new press spokesman
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGAJRKAWAAAT_lR.jpg
♪ Rusty ♫ @Rusty123B @ShippersUnbound ...
I can understand the politics behind this on one level - Cameron knows his chance of getting the Referendum through is to hold it while his personal trust level and that of the Government remains high. I always thought it strange late 2017 was being considered as that would be in mid-term when Governments are unpopular and the desire to give the Prime Minister a kick would be at its highest.
Cameron and Conservative strategists have recognised they have a possibly 18-month honeymoon period (though plenty can go wrong) when the message "Trust Dave" will still have resonance.
I'm more annoyed by this concept that if you are vote No to the renegotiated package you are voting to leave the EU. This is appalling and illogical in the extreme. I may not like the renegotiated terms but that doesn't imply I want the UK to leave the EU. I might hold the view that the mad woman up the street who shouts at cats could have got a better package than the Prime Minister but this concept of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is just absurd.
My understanding was there were two scenarios - either Cameron comes back with renegotiated terms of membership on which we vote. IF these terms are rejected, Cameron (assuming he survives) either seeks to amend those terms or we move to a straight In/Out vote on the current terms.
The alternative is Cameron fails to get terms and we simply have an In/Out referendum.
I fully expect the Prime Minister to return to Heathrow and say "I have on my Ipad Mini an email digitally signed by Frau Merkel which provides for continued UK membership of the EU in our time" but to reject that is not to endorse leaving the EU and it is disingenuous to mix the two though I understand it politically.
I suspect Cameron is relying on his personal charisma and a whipped up hysteria over the consequences of withdrawal to carry the day but it's a risk and Farage's grenade might yet blow up in Cameron's face if people either decide to kick Cameron or that there's much less downside to EU withdrawal than suspected.
He's allllrrrriiiiiggghhhttt
You know you want to :-)
- Ever closer union
- In Europe, but not run by Europe
- Better off out
Bonus points awared to any voter who can name the UK's EU commissioner
Yes, I am very slow.
1) Retain membership of the EU
2) Leave the EU
3) Invade France
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?
I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.
At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?
Edited extra bit: cheers for the AV answer, Mr. Eagles.
Btw any big wedding plans ? I hope you've claimed your Irish passport. :-)
More generally, when you hear a large number from a politician, it's normally best to do what a couple of people up-thread have objected to me doing and divide by the affected population to get it in perspective. This isn't particularly a trick to make it seem smaller - it's just the best way to see what the number means. If it's really a big number, it'll sound big when you imagine yourself paying it.
I'd make a very good president of Ireland. I'm quite sure I could unite Ireland (in its dislike of me).
Anyhoo, must go off to rebalance the economy since Osborne's doing bugger all about it.