Danny565 Indeed and it is interesting that David M led with both Labour voters and voters as a whole and Burnham leads with both Labour voters and voters as a whole
4. I do not really trust Cameron to come up with anything more than tinkering, not because I doubt his good faith but because I think the dialogue between him and other countries is, fundamentally, a dialogue of the deaf. We have fundamentally different views about the whole project.
This is the key point I think. It amazes me how fast the European countries seem to want to integrate. All it does is build up resentment that will at some point spill over. While I don't want to vote out, I may well do if the EU doesn't signal that the UK can avoid the push towards ever closer union.
There are many things I loathe about the EU: its undemocratic nature, its belief in the infallibility of wise bureaucrats, its top down approach to life, its statist belief it has to rule on every aspect of life, its contempt for anyone who has doubts or just a different point of view, its contempt for the people, its secrecy and dishonesty and, above all, the way it has corrupted what is a very well worthwhile idea: co-operation between states designed to avoid the sort of murderous frenzy which has caused such damage to Europe in the past, something I strongly support.
But telling me what sort of light bulbs I can use is not necessary to prevent an Oradour-sur-Glane.
I could go on.
There are days when I feel inclined to vote "Out" simply to make it clear to the EU that "Thus Far and No Further". If there is a choice between Europe as currently constituted and Democracy, I will choose Democracy every time. It would be wise of the EU not to make it such a choice but being wise is something which EU leaders tend not to be.
If the EU is at risk of losing people like me, then long-term the project is in trouble, whatever the short-term results.
If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.
Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.
To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.
No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.
As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.
We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.
I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin
And this post is from the party of pathetic.
Yes, UKIP are pathetic.
Huzzah on becoming self aware.
you risk being dragged in to the EU headbanging, I suggest leaving them to it. 108 Kipper MPs can't be wrong.
I know. I really shouldn't engage with people with lower IQs than I as Kippers generally have lower IQs than us Tories.
On the flip side I've written a thread that utilises this video
FF Though he is best buddies with Joan Collins, so perhaps she could be his deputy? If it ends up being Khan v Massow, what about Lord Sugar as an outside bet running as an independent? He declined to run in 2012 but with Boris not running and as an ex Labour and Tory supporter he could do a Bloomberg, he also has vast wealth as he did and huge name recognition which would enable him to run an effective independent campaign
Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority. So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!
But what about the seats where the Greens didn't stand?
I know some say, Ester McVey lost, because there was no Green candidate there.
PS - It is very arrogant to assume all Greens are Labour supporters on holiday, people used to say the same about UKIP supporters being Tories on holiday
I am not assuming that all Green voters would otherwise have voted Labour . However, Labour would have benefitted disproportionately from the absence of such a candidate and in the seven constituencies I have identified the Green vote is much higher than the Tory majority
She'll need to come up with something better than accusing Kendall of being a Tory.
Why? From the outside, it does look as though Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. There doesn't seem to be much difference between her position and Cameron's:
They started out being asked for the six words that could encapsulate their vision for Britain.... Liz Kendall said “Power, wealth and opportunity for all" ... [She said] Labour must care as much about wealth creation as wealth redistribution (as it is that wealth that pays for public services). She also found a possibly unlikely ally in Jeremy Corbyn when she expanded the point to say that we must not confuse Socialism with Statism and we should redistribute power as much – if not more so – than money.
"Labour must be the champion of a more devolved UK, including within England.
This means working with our cities, towns and counties to help them take on more power and responsibility over welfare, housing, health, education, transport and economic growth.”
David Davis welcomes No10's "re-interpretation" on ministers' EU campaigning, says "vital" people can follow conscience
Don't get me wrong,I like Cameron but some on here on previous thread posting cameron's stance on sacking ministers who don't back him in the EU referendum showing we have a strong PM looking abit silly now ;-)
Though of course they will never for a second admit they were wrong.
Because we weren't wrong.
If Cameron were able to get all ministers behind him then it'd be a show of strength. However many of us said he would likely end up having to back down which would represent weakness, like Wilson.
With regard to being IN/OUT, I am open to being persuaded. Currently leaning towards IN, but concerned about the direction of travel with the EU 'dream'.
From reading on here, I am not alone. So if you want my vote: convince me, persuade me, show me the benefits (on either side).
What won't get my vote: calling Cameron a liar, or Farage a racist, or fears about jobs, or worries about the Euro. Come up with a positive vision and show us all.
Agree wholeheartedly. But I think it will be Project Fear on both sides, not least because too many people will use it to fight old battles or different battles and because both sides are too scared to present a positive and well-thought out vision of what might be - beyond platitudes - because they have not really thought their vision through and don't want it tested, in any case.
It's like an argument between believers and no-believers in the sixteenth century. You either believe or you don't and even if you don't you might well pretend to believe in order to avoid being cast into hell - and/or more physical torments (in this case, losing your job / not being able to visit your French holiday home).
But telling me what sort of light bulbs I can use is not necessary to prevent an Oradour-sur-Glane.
Nice line, but there's no feasible world, not even in the most far-out fantasies of the Kippers, in which the UK gets to set its own product type approvals distinct from the EU's. Even if that were not the case, in your particular example (and in most others like it) it's not even a specifically EU thing:
@paulwaugh: Burnham backer on Kendall: "Free Schools + unlimited role for private sector in NHS? Good luck with that when you're out on the road nxt wk"
She'll need to come up with something better than accusing Kendall of being a Tory.
Why? From the outside, it does look as though Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. There doesn't seem to be much difference between her position and Cameron's:
They started out being asked for the six words that could encapsulate their vision for Britain.... Liz Kendall said “Power, wealth and opportunity for all" ... [She said] Labour must care as much about wealth creation as wealth redistribution (as it is that wealth that pays for public services). She also found a possibly unlikely ally in Jeremy Corbyn when she expanded the point to say that we must not confuse Socialism with Statism and we should redistribute power as much – if not more so – than money.
"Labour must be the champion of a more devolved UK, including within England.
This means working with our cities, towns and counties to help them take on more power and responsibility over welfare, housing, health, education, transport and economic growth.”
She'll need to come up with something better than accusing Kendall of being a Tory.
Why? From the outside, it does look as though Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. There doesn't seem to be much difference between her position and Cameron's
This doesn't sound like a Tory to me:
I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them.
Looking at who was moderating the launch of 'Laying the Foundations for a Labour Century' that she edited, if Labour elect her, they will also get their George Osborne back too.
I feel that David Cameron hates his party as much as Tony Blair hated Labour, given what is happening over the EU referendum. I see the usual suspects who are addicted to 'microphones' are out in force today. The MSM have been salivating over 'tory splits' and they have handed it to them on a plate.
If only half the stories of Labour's GE campaign are true, then this country have been spared an absolute travestry of a government. It doesn't bear thinking about that it could have been Ed Miliband sitting at that table at the G7. He would have looked like the student politician he is and just totally out of his depth.
I agree with the comment I read that Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. The others just look like the same old 'retreads.'
I suppose it's progress for some here that they accept there will be an EU referendum.......
It's a start - baby steps.
Roll on that AV thread to change the subject.
On thread - Yvette, you bet!
Well my stint as guest editor begins this weekend.
So expect wall to wall threads on AV, a second indyref and Sol Campbell for London Mayor
What about one comparing the Lairbour Parteh today with the Austrian army just after Wagram? Defeated yet again, the C-in-C turned out to be crap and maybe they should have had his brother in charge, and the other generals and potential successors were all total nonentities, the only half-decent one (Hiller / Johnson) having quit?
Or more seriously, what about something on Tower Hamlets; isn't there a mayoral election there this week? Who's the Labour nodding dog?
But telling me what sort of light bulbs I can use is not necessary to prevent an Oradour-sur-Glane.
Nice line, but there's no feasible world, not even in the most far-out fantasies of the Kippers, in which the UK gets to set its own product type approvals distinct from the EU's. Even if that were not the case, in your particular example (and in most others like it) it's not even a specifically EU thing:
If you want to pay more for your lighting than necessary then I'm sure that you can hunt down incandescent bulbs for the foreseeable future. It makes sense to swap to LEDs, they sip electricity, last longer and certain types even look nice (http://www.tagra-lighting.co.uk/led-filament-bulbs.html - other suppliers exist).
I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them.
Most of it sounds like Robert Halfon, and anyway she is trying to become leader of a union-dominated party. That 'if' is rather telling - she's left herself plenty of wriggle room. She's not exactly saying she'll bring back the Closed Shop, is she?
I feel that David Cameron hates his party as much as Tony Blair hated Labour, given what is happening over the EU referendum. I see the usual suspects who are addicted to 'microphones' are out in force today. The MSM have been salivating over 'tory splits' and they have handed it to them on a plate.
If only half the stories of Labour's GE campaign are true, then this country have been spared an absolute travestry of a government. It doesn't bear thinking about that it could have been Ed Miliband sitting at that table at the G7. He would have looked like the student politician he is and just totally out of his depth.
I agree with the comment I read that Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. The others just look like the same old 'retreads.'
That's because they are. The only names that are familiar are those that flopped under Blair or Brown. The other are parvenu chancer nobodies.
A bit like the other Austrian generals after Wagram. Or a Napoleonic French army led by a cabal of marshals rather than by Boney himself.
But telling me what sort of light bulbs I can use is not necessary to prevent an Oradour-sur-Glane.
Nice line, but there's no feasible world, not even in the most far-out fantasies of the Kippers, in which the UK gets to set its own product type approvals distinct from the EU's. Even if that were not the case, in your particular example (and in most others like it) it's not even a specifically EU thing:
You may well be right re the specific example and, indeed, others like it. But my concern is with the attitude of mind which thinks that interference in every aspect of life is necessary to prevent WW3 in Europe and, indeed, which thinks that leaving the EU is the first step on the road to another Auschwitz.
I dislike intensely top-down, statist approaches to life, whether they come from our government or the EU. We need freedom from the state to live our lives as we see fit. Increasingly, we're being treated as sheep who need to be tagged, corralled and generally bossed around.
I worry that we'll end up like the sheep in Far from the Madding Crowd - at the bottom of the cliff.
Britain's biggest family just got bigger! Couple celebrate arrival of their EIGHTEENTH child - but STILL refuse to claim benefits
Sue and Noel Radford welcomed 7lb 15oz daughter on Wednesday They run a successful family business and do not claim state handouts Couple lost their 17th child, Alfie, 21 weeks into pregnancy last year Family say their new daughter is 'beautiful' and the couple have paid tribute to her older brother by giving her the middle name, Alphia
Yes, LED technology came to the rescue just in time to save us from those dreadful flourescent bulbs, which are the work of the devil - dim, ugly, with an appalling colour spectrum, containing toxic heavy metals, and flickering feebly into life when you switch them on. They should be consigned to the dustbin of history (or the recycling bin of history, to comply with EU regulations!).
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them.
Most of it sounds like Robert Halfon, and anyway she is trying to become leader of a union-dominated party. That 'if' is rather telling - she's left herself plenty of wriggle room. She's not exactly saying she'll bring back the Closed Shop, is she?
The way I read her, and I could be wrong, is that she wants to bring the unions into the 21st century and would like to see their role expand by becoming relevant outside the rump of the public sector. Some of the other candidates seem to treat the unions as an embarrassing relative that is ignored as much as possible.
Kendall's position may be more challenging for the likes of Len McClusky but ultimately offers more promise to the union movement as a whole.
With the occasional 'Kendall is a Tory' comments being thrown around the internet, I wonder if she went a bit hard during her 'make an impression' stage. She decided to go for the Right wing of Labour position, and as I bore people by saying, if you create an impression strong enough you can then say and do things that go against that and not lose the support of those who like that position, so long as you don't go overboard, but maybe she was a bit too firm in setting out that stall.
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
LOL...two shags two jags has been banned from driving for 6 months while driving in the JAGGGGGGGG. That will be something else somebody has to do for him like tw@ttering :-)
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
My year in Paris was dominated by ...
*the general smell of filth. *completely unable to discern why the public transport wasn't running the way they said it should. *being unable to shop after around 2000. I ended up missing Tesco Express.
That said ...
*food - yes *countryside - yes
Actually not as different as people like to pretend
*the trains. Intercity trains were basically the same quality.
kle4 It was the same problem Clarke had running for Tory leader, he set out a stall which would have easily fitted into New Labour or even Kennedy's LDs more than the Tory Party. Kendall could easily be in Cameron's Cabinet, if Labour members wanted a Cameroon they would have joined the Tory Party
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
I lived in France for 3 months, hardly conclusive, but I wouldn't swap. Edinburgh was a beacon of sanity after Nice.
English is not my first language but I will give it a try. I went to see this for free today on the premiere in Portugal, I wasn't expecting much because I saw the IMDb score, and YouTube comments saying it was propaganda, I honestly taught everybody was overreacting and went to see it with an open-mind, besides that I love Tim Roth with all my heart.
Oh boy was I wrong, the movie is 2 hours of showing FIFA like martyrs that went against the world for football, even when they almost admit they were corrupt with was just for the greater good - football, showing that FIFA don't care about money, the only money they need is for Football, but for me the most f*cking shocking part was Tim Roth's role - Joseph Blatter.
They show him like he was the Mahatma Gandhi of Football , if that sounds offensive it's because it is. I isn't subtle it's just plan offensive, this is as low as the propaganda movies Hitler used to convince kids joining the Nazis. On the bright side the movie lacks so much subtlety that it's almost hilarious.
Speaking on the technical side, the sets and clothing are nice, not great but nice, everything else is terrible, terrible directing, terrible editing, generic music that sounds like it was taken from a free sound archive, disgusting color grading. It seems like they spend every dollar on the main cast, that I like but they couldn't save this movie. Nothing could.
It's depressing to see FIFA resort to this, I don't know if using the same strategy that Hitler used will make people see them in good eyes. For me I lost the little respect I still had for organization.
Off to Brittany tomorrow for 10 days so I would certainly consider myself a Francophile, indeed some of my ancestors were Huguenots, but there is no doubt the UK has the better government and economy for now and London has clearly overtaken Paris as the major challenger to New York
I saw a lovely intv with Jimmy Stewart in Talking Pictures over the weekend. He mentioned his oddest role when cast as an Austrian Prince "I must have needed the work".
What dire straights led Tim Roth and Sam Neill to appear in THIS??? It can't be a lack of work, shurely????
Off to Brittany tomorrow for 10 days so I would certainly consider myself a Francophile, indeed some of my ancestors were Huguenots, but there is no doubt the UK has the better government and economy for now and London has clearly overtaken Paris as the major challenger to New York
Or London has overtaken New York as the major challenger to Paris, depending on which way you look at it.
Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority. So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!
I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
My year in Paris was dominated by ...
*the general smell of filth. *completely unable to discern why the public transport wasn't running the way they said it should. *being unable to shop after around 2000. I ended up missing Tesco Express.
That said ...
*food - yes *countryside - yes
Actually not as different as people like to pretend
*the trains. Intercity trains were basically the same quality.
France is like Britain in the Seventies (without the good music). Living on past glories, lost its place in the world, strikes and rubbish everywhere, race riots and brutal cops. Visiting France is like using a time machine.
Though 1976 was apparently Britains best year ever:
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
There is plenty to admire about lots of countries in Europe. But we don't all need to be the same. And we should have much more belief in our own system and way of life, which is a pretty good one, all things being considered. Most important, it's ours, which is why it's special to us. And the French one is special to the French, precisely because it's theirs.
Admiration of another country need not involve dislike of one's own. I'm a tad sceptical of those who - as part of saying why they like country A, B or C - also feel the need to spit on their home country. It's a pretty adolescent approach and certainly not a basis for sensible policy. I sometimes feel that some of those who are very keen on the EU are those who use this to disguise their dislike of their own country.
WG You could look at it that way I suppose, but I think in terms of population, centres of commerce, the media, global politics etc it is between London and New York though I would rate Paris still more beautiful than both
Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?
It's okay as long as it somehow relates to current business in the House. Bit difficult to police what people are doing on their devices. I suppose reading a newspaper is obviously not related to business, although it's a bit unfair given that most people on devices are probably doing things that aren't related to current business.
Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
That's probably because so many British people were enjoying their salad days in 1976 rather than it being objectively better than other periods of time.
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
My year in Paris was dominated by ...
*the general smell of filth. *completely unable to discern why the public transport wasn't running the way they said it should. *being unable to shop after around 2000. I ended up missing Tesco Express.
That said ...
*food - yes *countryside - yes
Actually not as different as people like to pretend
*the trains. Intercity trains were basically the same quality.
France is like Britain in the Seventies (without the good music). Living on past glories, lost its place in the world, strikes and rubbish everywhere, race riots and brutal cops. Visiting France is like using a time machine.
Though 1976 was apparently Britains best year ever:
Liz in the wrong party? I've always been in the wrong party. Labour originally but wanted the SDP to succeed. Came back when Foot shuffled off. Switched to LDs when Charlie appeared and stuck with them even when I saw the flaws in the EU.
Voted Ukip as a NOTA last time but now .... not waving but drowning.
Might vote Labour again if Liz gets it. Otherwise Ukip just to annoy Mr Eagles.
If the GE election showed how utterly useless our MSM are, then the two press conferences at the G7 for David Cameron and Barack Obama has just proved it beyond any doubt.
All the questions to David Cameron were about the BLOODY EU. Whereas Barack Obama was asked about Cyber attacks, the state of the dollar, ISIS and FIFA etc. What a contrast! These British journalists should hang their heads in shame but no doubt they are all enjoying their expenses paid trip to what looks like an absolutely stunning part of the world.
Is it me, or is their too much bloody noise in the House of Commons? A member of the ScotsNats has just been told off for reading a newspaper. It is going to be a long five years!
Mr Dancer, Christian Horner saying that if they don't allow engine development then they may quit the sport. I think Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that one.
"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it
If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"
I'm not scared to admit when I think other societies are better than ours in some ways. I'd prefer to try to emulate those bits rather than just declare theirs better and emulate it wholesale, which would include the bits that are even worse.
The thing is that France is better than the UK in so many ways including general lifestyle. The problem is that their political system is rubbish and more importantly their view of the State as the ultimate provider and authority is also rubbish. Plus they are a lot more racist than the UK.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
I think that's generally accepted in all honesty, more or less. I mean, the things people tend to complain about France are things like politics. And their city-suburbs (I don't know if they are better or worse than ours, as I'm not a city person). Not so much anything like lifestyle stuff.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
My year in Paris was dominated by ...
*the general smell of filth. *completely unable to discern why the public transport wasn't running the way they said it should. *being unable to shop after around 2000. I ended up missing Tesco Express.
That said ...
*food - yes *countryside - yes
Actually not as different as people like to pretend
*the trains. Intercity trains were basically the same quality.
Though 1976 was apparently Britains best year ever:
Mr. Sandpit, is that 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'
There has been talk of Renault buying Toro Rosso and Audi buying Red Bull [F1 team].
Yep, that's the one. To say he's not too happy with his engines would be something of an understatement, the development rules will only entrench this situation for at least another couple of years.
The rumour about Audi/Porshe getting involved in F1 has been around forever. It will happen the day after the octogenarian dwarf loses his fight with immortality!
Mr. Sandpit, vielleicht. The old Audi boss, who has recently retired, was the one who really disliked Ecclestone.
Things need to change. Many people are tired of saving fuel, tyres, brakes etc etc.
Indeed. I'd give them 100kg of fuel, maximum external dimensions of the car, limited aero development and a ban on electronic driver aids such as traction control. Then let the designers design and the drivers drive. Proper racing with real-world innovating from the teams, which is what F1 has always been primarily about as a sport.
Mr. Sandpit, pretty sure traction control's banned already.
The aero proposals may have promise. A narrower rear wing and a front wing the centre of which must be neutral/standardised is intended to minimise the impact of running in dirty air, which is why overtaking is so hard.
And DRS should be banned. Not sure if it will be, but even if not, narrowing the rear wing will decrease the impact.
Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority. So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!
I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
Mr. Sandpit, pretty sure traction control's banned already.
The aero proposals may have promise. A narrower rear wing and a front wing the centre of which must be neutral/standardised is intended to minimise the impact of running in dirty air, which is why overtaking is so hard.
And DRS should be banned. Not sure if it will be, but even if not, narrowing the rear wing will decrease the impact.
Yes, TC is banned under current regs. Mr Raikkonnen spinning made me happy yesterday. ;-) However the initial development of active suspension, traction control, semi-automatic gearboxes and a load more started in F1 and is now common in road cars. This is what needs encouraging as it has crossover potential for the real world for all those expensive engineers the teams employ. As in the past they need to allow these technologies to be developed, then ban them when they start to make the cars dangerously fast.
At the moment the top teams spend $100m a season on aero stuff, 99.9% of which is for very marginal gain and has no application outside F1. A rule that for example a front wing may only contain two elements would drastically cut that spending while still allowing some development.
The problem that DRS addresses is that the aero is now designed to be really good over the car but disruptive behind it, thus denying the old-fashioned 'tow' when closely following another car which used to lead to more overtaking in the races.
Mr. Jessop, you should see what deal's reach, although I suspect Out will remain the best option.
The direction of travel for the EU runs directly contrary to the desires of the British electorate and the British national interest. Ever closer union is not something we want or need. The vote isn't about what's on the table in 2016/7, but where we'll be in 2025, 2035 and so on. Can you see anything other than a drive to snatch ever more sovereignty away from us, without recourse to a vote?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, not sure I entirely agree. A tow can still be had on straights, it's the dirty air in corners which is the problem.
I'd agree on front wings. Proposal is to widen them, I think (so air can be 'sucked in' from the sides and downforce maintained even when following a car ahead, and its dirty rear wing air).
Mr. Sandpit, pretty sure traction control's banned already.
The aero proposals may have promise. A narrower rear wing and a front wing the centre of which must be neutral/standardised is intended to minimise the impact of running in dirty air, which is why overtaking is so hard.
And DRS should be banned. Not sure if it will be, but even if not, narrowing the rear wing will decrease the impact.
Allegedly (ahem) one of the minor aims of rear-wing design for the top teams is to purposefully dirty up the air behind to make it harder for cars to follow close behind. This is particularly useful now with the one-second DRS rule.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority. So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!
I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
Why are you posting this?
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...
'I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.'
'I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.'
'Why are you posting this?
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...'
I have simply making the point that - having looked at the detailed constiuency results - Labour lost 7 seats as a result of a Green candidate standing. If so those Green votes proved decisive in giving Cameron a majority - in that without them the Tories would have 323 seats and much more dependent on Ulster votes.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
Why? Having seen your postings on here for long enough and knowing that you are able to understand the arguments perfectly well, why should I waste time trying to convince someone who is politically aware but chooses to play silly games pretending that their vote will be swayed by whether or not I am nice to them? That really is the height of arrogance.
This is why I don't pull punches with people like Richard N or TSE. They are party political faithful who are well aware of the arguments and have dismissed them but choose to pretend that they are taking a balanced view. They are already closed to any reasoned argument so what is the point trying to pursue it? It is much more worthwhile concentrating on the masses of people outside this little bubble who do not follow politics day to day and are still open to persuasion. PB is just a place to go to practice arguments, learn a thing or two and have a dig at the party fanatics. Today I have enjoyed myself doing the last of those.
In the end I actually reckon from what you have said on here in the past and what I expect to be the result of the 'renegotiation' that you will vote OUT. If my digs at idiots like Richard and TSE are enough to make you change your mind then you really aren't as bright as I thought.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
The really bizarre thing is that he was responding to barbs directed at others and not himself.
I have simply making the point that - having looked at the detailed constiuency results - Labour lost 7 seats as a result of a Green candidate standing. If so those Green votes proved decisive in giving Cameron a majority - in that without them the Tories would have 323 seats and much more dependent on Ulster votes.
I understand what you are posting, my question was why. You might as well post "If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle". Never mind
Just looking through some old posts and just before the election - I said I had a fiver left at Will Hill what should I spend it on? The very next post suggested Con Majority at 17.5, I took Lib Dem 11-20 seats instead.
Mr. Sandpit, pretty sure traction control's banned already.
The aero proposals may have promise. A narrower rear wing and a front wing the centre of which must be neutral/standardised is intended to minimise the impact of running in dirty air, which is why overtaking is so hard.
And DRS should be banned. Not sure if it will be, but even if not, narrowing the rear wing will decrease the impact.
Allegedly (ahem) one of the minor aims of rear-wing design for the top teams is to purposefully dirty up the air behind to make it harder for cars to follow close behind. This is particularly useful now with the one-second DRS rule.
I disagree with Dan Hodges's piece on Jeremy Corbyn.
I'd like to see all five of the candidates get on the ballot paper, with the hard left represented, so that the party can have a proper, root and branch, debate. It'd do Labour a world of good.
Corbyn is a true, principled, hard-core socialist. He may be deemed bonkers by the mainstream, but so be it. He represents a lot of Labour voters and he should make the socialist case in the interests of democracy.
There's no way Corbyn could be painted as a member of the establishment.
Why? Having seen your postings on here for long enough and knowing that you are able to understand the arguments perfectly well, why should I waste time trying to convince someone who is politically aware but chooses to play silly games pretending that their vote will be swayed by whether or not I am nice to them? That really is the height of arrogance.
This is why I don't pull punches with people like Richard N or TSE. They are party political faithful who are well aware of the arguments and have dismissed them but choose to pretend that they are taking a balanced view. They are already closed to any reasoned argument so what is the point trying to pursue it? It is much more worthwhile concentrating on the masses of people outside this little bubble who do not follow politics day to day and are still open to persuasion. PB is just a place to go to practice arguments, learn a thing or two and have a dig at the party fanatics. Today I have enjoyed myself doing the last of those.
In the end I actually reckon from what you have said on here in the past and what I expect to be the result of the 'renegotiation' that you will vote OUT. If my digs at idiots like Richard and TSE are enough to make you change your mind then you really aren't as bright as I thought.
I don't actually know the arguments that well: mostly it is instinctive reaction, as it probably is with most people. That is why I listen to your views on the EEA, EFTA etc (as I do RCS's from a different viewpoint). It is why I've repeatedly called for more information from 'out', and you're about the only person on that side to give good, knowledgeable answers.
Don't assume that people (however bright, or not) have the time to dig into this. As such, you are a knowledgeable source. And that's why I say your comments today harm that.
I have no idea which way I will vote. I don't want further integration, so I'd probably only vote 'in' if Cameron came back with something akin to a two-speed Europe with no chance of roll-forward. I doubt that's going to happen. That fear of further integration is what 'out' should be making a lot of IMHO, but I don't know enough to go deeper than that.
Hopefully you'll take the majority of this post as a compliment ...
I disagree with Dan Hodges's piece on Jeremy Corbyn.
I'd like to see all five of the candidates get on the ballot paper, with the hard left represented, so that the party can have a proper, root and branch, debate. It'd do Labour a world of good.
Corbyn is a true, principled, hard-core socialist. He may be deemed bonkers by the mainstream, but he represents a lot of Labour voters.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
The really bizarre thing is that he was responding to barbs directed at others and not himself.
He's not the first person to threaten vote withdrawal over postings on this board either, Beverley C was at it the other day. Perhaps we're going to endure weekly flounces threatening constitutional carnage if they get their toes trodden on here.
'I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.'
'I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.'
'Why are you posting this?
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...'
I have simply making the point that - having looked at the detailed constiuency results - Labour lost 7 seats as a result of a Green candidate standing. If so those Green votes proved decisive in giving Cameron a majority - in that without them the Tories would have 323 seats and much more dependent on Ulster votes.
Have to say the post is idiotic. You identify one thing which did not happen and move from it to the Tories losing their majority. Life is not as simple and politics certainly not. You'd be much better off accepting what did happen and moving on. Labour lost and the role of the Greens in their defeat was minimal.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
The really bizarre thing is that he was responding to barbs directed at others and not himself.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
The really bizarre thing is that he was responding to barbs directed at others and not himself.
He's not the first person to threaten vote withdrawal over postings on this board either, Beverley C was at it the other day. Perhaps we're going to endure weekly flounces threatening constitutional carnage if they get their toes trodden on here.
Round and round went the bloody great wheel...............
There are too many people in this land (represented on PB by the fickle few) who truly do not know their arse from their elbow (no, not you Sunnil).
Having no political or philosophy of their own, they stay on an increasingly uncomfortable fence, constantly complaining of their own failures, and berating those that, for good or ill, have made a judgment call and intend to act on it.
Hopefully you'll take the majority of this post as a compliment ...
I do indeed and as I said in my reply to Luckyguy I was surprised because my attacks had not been directed at you today. I have always tried to be scrupulously straight with my postings concerning the EU and that comes off the back of more than 20 years working as s researcher for various anti-EU groups (most of whom have nothing at all to do with UKIP).
This is why I have no tolerance for the sorts of misinformation spouted by some pro EU or at least pro Cameron posters on here. There are valid arguments for a federal European state. There are those who are advocating exactly that - even a few in the UK but many more in Europe. But almost to a man the Europhiles in the UK try to pretend that that is not happening and that it is not the intent of the EU. They also try to pretend that there is no difference between the EEA and the EU, or that continued membership of the EU means things will be either as they are now or a looser relationship. Neither of these is on the table - never have been and never will. To try and pretend that they are an option in this vote is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous. Those making these arguments are clearly not ignorant so one has to be left with the view that they are being dishonest. And that is not something I feel we should have any time for.
Some posters on here object when I say that some politicians - notably Cameron at the moment but not exclusively him - are lying. But if what he is saying is untrue and is calculated to sway the argument - both of which are clearly the case - then it would be foolish to let that lie as fact. The only way to deal with lies is to challenge them head on. You can do it, as I have done in the past, by pointing out why they are lies but that doesn't really change the bottom line which is that you have to expose them as such. For people like Richard N to then get all huffy because we should not say things so bluntly is infantile. What he is really saying is he doesn't like the lies being exposed.
I am not sure there is actually much more to be said about the options in front of us. I have written extensively over the last few years about what is wrong with the EU and why it cannot be reformed. I have also written extensively about why Cameron's renegotiation is nothing of the sort and is designed simply to obfuscate. And yet the same pro EU/pro Cameron clique on here come out with the same disinformation time and time again. In such a small closed group you really do get to the point of thinking there is no point answering their comments in a constructive manner because they will just ignore it and post the same rubbish again a week later.
Hence the reason that once in a while I like to poke the hornets nest.
Liz in the wrong party? I've always been in the wrong party. Labour originally but wanted the SDP to succeed. Came back when Foot shuffled off. Switched to LDs when Charlie appeared and stuck with them even when I saw the flaws in the EU.
Voted Ukip as a NOTA last time but now .... not waving but drowning.
Might vote Labour again if Liz gets it. Otherwise Ukip just to annoy Mr Eagles.
So is '97 the only time you've voted with the winner in that case?!
I have no idea which way I will vote. I don't want further integration, so I'd probably only vote 'in' if Cameron came back with something akin to a two-speed Europe with no chance of roll-forward. I doubt that's going to happen. That fear of further integration is what 'out' should be making a lot of IMHO, but I don't know enough to go deeper than that.
The real lesson from today, as before, is whatever Cameron comes home with will be a political promise at best, and therefore worthless.
If its a proposed treaty change (which given the stance of the French seems unlikely) it won't be a ratified treaty for several years, and much may happen to the detail, or indeed the spirit, of that treaty between now and then, and there is a fair chance that it will fail to be ratified altogether. There has been NO discussion or commitment as to what happens if we vote IN on the basis of a treaty which is substantially changed or fails ratification.
Much more likely there will be some sort of non-treaty "legal agreement" between the parties, which is also worthless, but might sounds good to the voters, as it will be subject to review and being struck down by the ECJ, a body which has as part of its very remit the aim of furthering EU integration.
It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.
At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)
I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)
I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.
Thanks for proving my point. You ought to be trying to appeal to people such as myself, who are willing to be persuaded, instead of actively repelling them.
All we can all do is look at the issues and vote sincerely with the future of the country in mind. To imagine that Richard or anyone else here should treat you with kid gloves or risk losing your vote is frankly bizarre.
The really bizarre thing is that he was responding to barbs directed at others and not himself.
He's not the first person to threaten vote withdrawal over postings on this board either, Beverley C was at it the other day. Perhaps we're going to endure weekly flounces threatening constitutional carnage if they get their toes trodden on here.
Round and round went the bloody great wheel...............
There are too many people in this land (represented on PB by the fickle few) who truly do not know their arse from their elbow (no, not you Sunnil).
Having no political or philosophy of their own, they stay on an increasingly uncomfortable fence, constantly complaining of their own failures, and berating those that, for good or ill, have made a judgment call and intend to act on it.
I disagree with all of that. The world has too many people who develop a position based on nothing but bias and instinct and try to make the facts fit that position, rather than develop their position based on the facts, or as near the facts as they can get.
Although I'm hardly immune to the former disease, sadly ...
I have no idea which way I will vote. I don't want further integration, so I'd probably only vote 'in' if Cameron came back with something akin to a two-speed Europe with no chance of roll-forward. I doubt that's going to happen. That fear of further integration is what 'out' should be making a lot of IMHO, but I don't know enough to go deeper than that.
The real lesson from today, as before, is whatever Cameron comes home with will be a political promise at best, and therefore worthless.
If its a proposed treaty change (which given the stance of the French seems unlikely) it won't be a ratified treaty for several years, and much may happen to the detail, or indeed the spirit, of that treaty between now and then, and there is a fair chance that it will fail to be ratified altogether. There has been NO discussion or commitment as to what happens if we vote IN on the basis of a treaty which is substantially changed or fails ratification.
Much more likely there will be some sort of non-treaty "legal agreement" between the parties, which is also worthless, but might sounds good to the voters, as it will be subject to review and being struck down by the ECJ, a body which has as part of its very remit the aim of furthering EU integration.
Let's wait and see what happens. In the meantime it'd be good if 'out' could paint a positive, detailed picture of a UK outside the EU. So far it's sadly lacking.
Fortunately for them, the 'in' crowd have not really got going, either.
The real lesson from today, as before, is whatever Cameron comes home with will be a political promise at best, and therefore worthless.
Nonsense,or at least if you think what Cameron comes back with will be 'worthless', how can you possibly prefer the 100% unknown option of leaving? There's not going to be a cast-iron Brexit plan on the table, complete with a legally-binding trade treaty with our EU friends. There's not even going to be the faintest outline of a possible trade treaty. We won't know, for example, how much freedom of movement will be incorporated into any trade treaty, or indeed if we're going to try to negotiate entry into the EEA. So, by your logic, the Out side are going to be offering something even more 'worthless' than the In side.
The referendum, like almost every important choice in life, is about making a decision on information about the future which by its nature cannot be certain, although the Out option is clearly the more uncertain of the two. Get used to it, that is life. It doesn't mean it's worthless, it means voters will have to make a judgement.
Comments
But telling me what sort of light bulbs I can use is not necessary to prevent an Oradour-sur-Glane.
I could go on.
There are days when I feel inclined to vote "Out" simply to make it clear to the EU that "Thus Far and No Further". If there is a choice between Europe as currently constituted and Democracy, I will choose Democracy every time. It would be wise of the EU not to make it such a choice but being wise is something which EU leaders tend not to be.
If the EU is at risk of losing people like me, then long-term the project is in trouble, whatever the short-term results.
On the flip side I've written a thread that utilises this video
https://youtu.be/WFHhhwWiXRE
They started out being asked for the six words that could encapsulate their vision for Britain.... Liz Kendall said “Power, wealth and opportunity for all"
...
[She said] Labour must care as much about wealth creation as wealth redistribution (as it is that wealth that pays for public services). She also found a possibly unlikely ally in Jeremy Corbyn when she expanded the point to say that we must not confuse Socialism with Statism and we should redistribute power as much – if not more so – than money.
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/labour-leadership-candidates-face-off-over-education-europe-and-scotland/
And:
"Labour must be the champion of a more devolved UK, including within England.
This means working with our cities, towns and counties to help them take on more power and responsibility over welfare, housing, health, education, transport and economic growth.”
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/liz-kendall-says-labour-were-too-timid-on-devolution-and-outlines-plans-to-give-power-to-local-government/
If Cameron were able to get all ministers behind him then it'd be a show of strength. However many of us said he would likely end up having to back down which would represent weakness, like Wilson.
Don't need to change any of that.
It's like an argument between believers and no-believers in the sixteenth century. You either believe or you don't and even if you don't you might well pretend to believe in order to avoid being cast into hell - and/or more physical torments (in this case, losing your job / not being able to visit your French holiday home).
@elashton: Yvette Cooper asked MPs at Labour leadership hustings: "Who do you want to be sat behind every Wednesday for the next four years?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/letter-trade-unionist-britains-trade-unionists
I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them.
Looking at who was moderating the launch of 'Laying the Foundations for a Labour Century' that she edited, if Labour elect her, they will also get their George Osborne back too.
http://www.policy-network.net/event/3985/Laying-the-foundations-for-a-Labour-century
If only half the stories of Labour's GE campaign are true, then this country have been spared an absolute travestry of a government. It doesn't bear thinking about that it could have been Ed Miliband sitting at that table at the G7. He would have looked like the student politician he is and just totally out of his depth.
I agree with the comment I read that Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. The others just look like the same old 'retreads.'
Or more seriously, what about something on Tower Hamlets; isn't there a mayoral election there this week? Who's the Labour nodding dog?
It makes sense to swap to LEDs, they sip electricity, last longer and certain types even look nice (http://www.tagra-lighting.co.uk/led-filament-bulbs.html - other suppliers exist).
A bit like the other Austrian generals after Wagram. Or a Napoleonic French army led by a cabal of marshals rather than by Boney himself.
I dislike intensely top-down, statist approaches to life, whether they come from our government or the EU. We need freedom from the state to live our lives as we see fit. Increasingly, we're being treated as sheep who need to be tagged, corralled and generally bossed around.
I worry that we'll end up like the sheep in Far from the Madding Crowd - at the bottom of the cliff.
Kendall's position may be more challenging for the likes of Len McClusky but ultimately offers more promise to the union movement as a whole.
Still wouldn't swap being English for being French but there is far more to admire than to dislike about them.
Oh, and pretentious movies, that gets mocked at least.
*the general smell of filth.
*completely unable to discern why the public transport wasn't running the way they said it should.
*being unable to shop after around 2000. I ended up missing Tesco Express.
That said ...
*food - yes
*countryside - yes
Actually not as different as people like to pretend
*the trains. Intercity trains were basically the same quality.
I thought in the world of tinsel town - 'all publicity was good publicity'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33050289
United Passions with Tim Roth score 2.6 on IMDb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDz4ywq2zxs
Best Review...
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed, it's insufficient time. I suspect it'll be a promise which will then be disregarded after the vote.
The FIFA film has impeccable timing.
I think they should re-title the FIFA film "Hubris".
What dire straights led Tim Roth and Sam Neill to appear in THIS??? It can't be a lack of work, shurely????
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.
Though 1976 was apparently Britains best year ever:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html
Admiration of another country need not involve dislike of one's own. I'm a tad sceptical of those who - as part of saying why they like country A, B or C - also feel the need to spit on their home country. It's a pretty adolescent approach and certainly not a basis for sensible policy. I sometimes feel that some of those who are very keen on the EU are those who use this to disguise their dislike of their own country.
Mr. Hopkins, are you suggesting that FIFA's vuvuzela of confidence has fallen silent?
The Moroccans can't be best pleased.
"A vanity film about the history of Fifa has flopped in the US, taking just $607 (£397) in its opening weekend."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33049962
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
Just for a bit of fun!
Voted Ukip as a NOTA last time but now .... not waving but drowning.
Might vote Labour again if Liz gets it. Otherwise Ukip just to annoy Mr Eagles.
All the questions to David Cameron were about the BLOODY EU. Whereas Barack Obama was asked about Cyber attacks, the state of the dollar, ISIS and FIFA etc. What a contrast! These British journalists should hang their heads in shame but no doubt they are all enjoying their expenses paid trip to what looks like an absolutely stunning part of the world.
Is it me, or is their too much bloody noise in the House of Commons? A member of the ScotsNats has just been told off for reading a newspaper. It is going to be a long five years!
Christian Horner saying that if they don't allow engine development then they may quit the sport.
I think Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that one.
There has been talk of Renault buying Toro Rosso and Audi buying Red Bull [F1 team].
The rumour about Audi/Porshe getting involved in F1 has been around forever. It will happen the day after the octogenarian dwarf loses his fight with immortality!
Things need to change. Many people are tired of saving fuel, tyres, brakes etc etc.
The aero proposals may have promise. A narrower rear wing and a front wing the centre of which must be neutral/standardised is intended to minimise the impact of running in dirty air, which is why overtaking is so hard.
And DRS should be banned. Not sure if it will be, but even if not, narrowing the rear wing will decrease the impact.
At the moment the top teams spend $100m a season on aero stuff, 99.9% of which is for very marginal gain and has no application outside F1. A rule that for example a front wing may only contain two elements would drastically cut that spending while still allowing some development.
The problem that DRS addresses is that the aero is now designed to be really good over the car but disruptive behind it, thus denying the old-fashioned 'tow' when closely following another car which used to lead to more overtaking in the races.
The direction of travel for the EU runs directly contrary to the desires of the British electorate and the British national interest. Ever closer union is not something we want or need. The vote isn't about what's on the table in 2016/7, but where we'll be in 2025, 2035 and so on. Can you see anything other than a drive to snatch ever more sovereignty away from us, without recourse to a vote?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, not sure I entirely agree. A tow can still be had on straights, it's the dirty air in corners which is the problem.
I'd agree on front wings. Proposal is to widen them, I think (so air can be 'sucked in' from the sides and downforce maintained even when following a car ahead, and its dirty rear wing air).
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...
'I have to say that this isn't very convincing. Gower has a majority of 27. Baron Barnes von Claptrap from the Monster Raving loonies got 253. You might as well argue Baron Claptrap handed the seat to the Tories.
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.'
'I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.'
'Why are you posting this?
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...'
I have simply making the point that - having looked at the detailed constiuency results - Labour lost 7 seats as a result of a Green candidate standing. If so those Green votes proved decisive in giving Cameron a majority - in that without them the Tories would have 323 seats and much more dependent on Ulster votes.
This is why I don't pull punches with people like Richard N or TSE. They are party political faithful who are well aware of the arguments and have dismissed them but choose to pretend that they are taking a balanced view. They are already closed to any reasoned argument so what is the point trying to pursue it? It is much more worthwhile concentrating on the masses of people outside this little bubble who do not follow politics day to day and are still open to persuasion. PB is just a place to go to practice arguments, learn a thing or two and have a dig at the party fanatics. Today I have enjoyed myself doing the last of those.
In the end I actually reckon from what you have said on here in the past and what I expect to be the result of the 'renegotiation' that you will vote OUT. If my digs at idiots like Richard and TSE are enough to make you change your mind then you really aren't as bright as I thought.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3115480/John-Prescott-banned-driving-caught-speeding-60mph.html
I'd like to see all five of the candidates get on the ballot paper, with the hard left represented, so that the party can have a proper, root and branch, debate. It'd do Labour a world of good.
Corbyn is a true, principled, hard-core socialist. He may be deemed bonkers by the mainstream, but so be it. He represents a lot of Labour voters and he should make the socialist case in the interests of democracy.
There's no way Corbyn could be painted as a member of the establishment.
Don't assume that people (however bright, or not) have the time to dig into this. As such, you are a knowledgeable source. And that's why I say your comments today harm that.
I have no idea which way I will vote. I don't want further integration, so I'd probably only vote 'in' if Cameron came back with something akin to a two-speed Europe with no chance of roll-forward. I doubt that's going to happen. That fear of further integration is what 'out' should be making a lot of IMHO, but I don't know enough to go deeper than that.
Hopefully you'll take the majority of this post as a compliment ...
In fact, UKIP were probably the real culprits with 4773 votes -- I bet most of those all came from the more deprived North of the constituency and were drawn from predominantly Labour wards.
Anyhow, as regards the Greens -- Labour were lucky. They were lucky this time that the Greens had a walking disaster has a leader.
Imagine if the face of anti austerity in England had not been Natalie Bennett, but someone more like Nicola Sturgeon. Say Caroline Lucas.
In fact, surely Caroline Lucas misjudged matters. She romped home increasing her majority sevenfold. I guess she resigned the leadership because she thought she was really vulnerable in Pavilion -- given the mess the Greens have made of Brighton Council.
I suspect the Greens missed an opportunity, because if Lucas rather Bennett had been the face of the Greens, they would have done a whole lot more damage.'
'I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.'
'Why are you posting this?
Gower has a tory MP, any arguments about what if this or that are supremely irrelevant, and not likely to be relevant to 2020 anyway when it will all be different again!
Loads of theories about UKIP depriving tories in 2010 were bandied about then, and not a single seat changed hand as a result...'
I have simply making the point that - having looked at the detailed constiuency results - Labour lost 7 seats as a result of a Green candidate standing. If so those Green votes proved decisive in giving Cameron a majority - in that without them the Tories would have 323 seats and much more dependent on Ulster votes.
Have to say the post is idiotic. You identify one thing which did not happen and move from it to the Tories losing their majority. Life is not as simple and politics certainly not. You'd be much better off accepting what did happen and moving on. Labour lost and the role of the Greens in their defeat was minimal.
There are too many people in this land (represented on PB by the fickle few) who truly do not know their arse from their elbow (no, not you Sunnil).
Having no political or philosophy of their own, they stay on an increasingly uncomfortable fence, constantly complaining of their own failures, and berating those that, for good or ill, have made a judgment call and intend to act on it.
This is why I have no tolerance for the sorts of misinformation spouted by some pro EU or at least pro Cameron posters on here. There are valid arguments for a federal European state. There are those who are advocating exactly that - even a few in the UK but many more in Europe. But almost to a man the Europhiles in the UK try to pretend that that is not happening and that it is not the intent of the EU. They also try to pretend that there is no difference between the EEA and the EU, or that continued membership of the EU means things will be either as they are now or a looser relationship. Neither of these is on the table - never have been and never will. To try and pretend that they are an option in this vote is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous. Those making these arguments are clearly not ignorant so one has to be left with the view that they are being dishonest. And that is not something I feel we should have any time for.
Some posters on here object when I say that some politicians - notably Cameron at the moment but not exclusively him - are lying. But if what he is saying is untrue and is calculated to sway the argument - both of which are clearly the case - then it would be foolish to let that lie as fact. The only way to deal with lies is to challenge them head on. You can do it, as I have done in the past, by pointing out why they are lies but that doesn't really change the bottom line which is that you have to expose them as such. For people like Richard N to then get all huffy because we should not say things so bluntly is infantile. What he is really saying is he doesn't like the lies being exposed.
I am not sure there is actually much more to be said about the options in front of us. I have written extensively over the last few years about what is wrong with the EU and why it cannot be reformed. I have also written extensively about why Cameron's renegotiation is nothing of the sort and is designed simply to obfuscate. And yet the same pro EU/pro Cameron clique on here come out with the same disinformation time and time again. In such a small closed group you really do get to the point of thinking there is no point answering their comments in a constructive manner because they will just ignore it and post the same rubbish again a week later.
Hence the reason that once in a while I like to poke the hornets nest.
"Secret Teacher: I'm fleeing the UK to find work-life balance
Until the government realises teaching is about more than results, we’re better off out of here"
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/06/secret-teacher-fleeing-uk-work-life-balance
If its a proposed treaty change (which given the stance of the French seems unlikely) it won't be a ratified treaty for several years, and much may happen to the detail, or indeed the spirit, of that treaty between now and then, and there is a fair chance that it will fail to be ratified altogether. There has been NO discussion or commitment as to what happens if we vote IN on the basis of a treaty which is substantially changed or fails ratification.
Much more likely there will be some sort of non-treaty "legal agreement" between the parties, which is also worthless, but might sounds good to the voters, as it will be subject to review and being struck down by the ECJ, a body which has as part of its very remit the aim of furthering EU integration.
How many seats in the 2015 General Election changed hands with the winning party losing vote share?
Although I'm hardly immune to the former disease, sadly ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11658640/David-Cameron-at-the-G7-summit-live.html
Russia and Qatar may have had to pay bribes to secure their World Cups, Sepp Blatter's former special advisor has suggested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33044932
I am shocked I tell you, absolutely shocked...
Fortunately for them, the 'in' crowd have not really got going, either.
The referendum, like almost every important choice in life, is about making a decision on information about the future which by its nature cannot be certain, although the Out option is clearly the more uncertain of the two. Get used to it, that is life. It doesn't mean it's worthless, it means voters will have to make a judgement.