UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
The social and work protections are a very important factor for many. It is why Labour and the Trade Unions have shifted sides in the debate.
The No campaign will be associated with rapracious expoloitative employers slavering over the possibility of shedding employment protections. Not a good look.
Whereas the Yes campaign will be associated with multi nat Big Business where the executives avoid company taxation, push immigration to keep wages down and avoid training their employees, demand the public purse bail out their low wage employees with benefits and then pay themselves huge salaries on which they also minimise their tax bills.
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
I don't think there's a renegotiation of any sort taking place.
I'm not sure that's quite right. But it's a renegotiation with the ambition of securing a clear Yes vote rather than a renegotiation from first principles.
What do you think will be renegotiated?
That deserves a fuller answer than I can give right now. I may do a thread on this.
However, I have two others in the pipeline first, so it may take a little while.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
Mr. Brooke, business being for In is a big plus for them.
Out needs to draw a dividing line between 'friendly' SMEs and 'tax-dodging' big business, the former for Out [less regulation/interference] the latter for In.
I would go as far as to suggest that UKIP, as presently led at least, is a bigger danger to the anti-EU cause than Cameron and the the rest of the YES campaign are.
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
I don't think there's a renegotiation of any sort taking place.
I'm not sure that's quite right. But it's a renegotiation with the ambition of securing a clear Yes vote rather than a renegotiation from first principles.
I disagree. If they really wanted to ensure a Yes vote they would negotiate very very hard to maximise the gains that they can sell to the voters. Offering very little as "gained" through negotiations risks driving up the No vote. Personally whilst I am disappointed by Cameron's back sliding over the social contract, I am pleased because it improves the chances of a No vote.
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
Tbh I didn't really expect anything else from Cameron. Dan Hanan has written a few pieces on how limp wristed the 'renogotition strategy' is.
You can't negotiate with people who are inflexible. The EU gravy train is too well established for there to be significant changes. The only thing to shift attitudes will be some significant outrages in the EU by outsiders.
Mr. Brooke, business being for In is a big plus for them.
Out needs to draw a dividing line between 'friendly' SMEs and 'tax-dodging' big business, the former for Out [less regulation/interference] the latter for In.
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
I don't think there's a renegotiation of any sort taking place.
I'm not sure that's quite right. But it's a renegotiation with the ambition of securing a clear Yes vote rather than a renegotiation from first principles.
I disagree. If they really wanted to ensure a Yes vote they would negotiate very very hard to maximise the gains that they can sell to the voters. Offering very little as "gained" through negotiations risks driving up the No vote. Personally whilst I am disappointed by Cameron's back sliding over the social contract, I am pleased because it improves the chances of a No vote.
The only voters who are noticing the negotiation process at present are already deeply entrenched in their views.
Oh, and UKIP's refusal to work with existing No groups shows that for UKIP party political advantage is more important than leaving the EU. That's been obvious for some time but it's nice to have it formally confirmed.
I feared this would happened when Farage un-resigned; a typical response from the egocentric and derisive figure who refuses to accept he has taken the party as far as he can.
What a lot of nonsense written about UKIP this morning. Almost all by it's detractors and enemies. Of course UKIP wants party political advantage, if there is any advantage to be gained, like any other party. The fact that UKIP, headed by Farage, wants to run it's own campaign should come as no surprise.
Many PBers of other parties want UKIP to bury itself, and get lost, in a general national campaign, and so lose any credibility it still holds. Well,too bad for you lot.
I would go as far as to suggest that UKIP, as presently led at least, is a bigger danger to the anti-EU cause than Cameron and the the rest of the YES campaign are.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
So what you're saying is that for most voters most outcomes after a No vote will be worse than the outcome after a Yes vote? I'm not sure that's going to broaden potential appeal.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
For me the big ones are:
- The Eurozone bloc vote being able to push through what they want - The threat to the City of London from anticapitalist regulation - Hundreds of thousands of non-EU immigrants being able to come here when they get EU passports - Billions of taxpayer money being spent on EU subsidies to make our food more expensive
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
So what you're saying is that for most voters most outcomes after a No vote will be worse than the outcome after a Yes vote? I'm not sure that's going to broaden potential appeal.
That's the same thing for the Yes side. Out of the people voting Yes, some will be wanting a streamlined, pro-business EU, while others want a socialist utopia. Without reform, we don't know which direction it will go in, nor we will get a say. The Eurozone bloc vote will decide, and we'll have to submit.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
So what you're saying is that for most voters most outcomes after a No vote will be worse than the outcome after a Yes vote? I'm not sure that's going to broaden potential appeal.
Well, if No adopts the purist libertarian position, which I think is the most popular on this website, it will appeal to the classes, but not, IMHO, to the masses.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
So what you're saying is that for most voters most outcomes after a No vote will be worse than the outcome after a Yes vote? I'm not sure that's going to broaden potential appeal.
That's the same thing for the Yes side. Out of the people voting Yes, some will be wanting a streamlined, pro-business EU, while others want a socialist utopia. Without reform, we don't know which direction it will go in, nor we will get a say. The Eurozone bloc vote will decide, and we'll have to submit.
Not really. For good or ill, most people have a sense of where they think the EU might go. It probably isn't one that many people are deliriously happy about, but it is at least a formed sense.
That's the same thing for the Yes side. Out of the people voting Yes, some will be wanting a streamlined, pro-business EU, while others want a socialist utopia. Without reform, we don't know which direction it will go in, nor we will get a say. The Eurozone bloc vote will decide, and we'll have to submit.
Not really. For good or ill, most people have a sense of where they think the EU might go. It probably isn't one that many people are deliriously happy about, but it is at least a formed sense.
I am dubious about that. I am far from convinced that the man on the Clapham Omnibus understands the implications of "ever closer union", or would vote for it if he did. The whole point of the EU Project so far has been to gain by incrementalism, disinginuity, and where required blatant lies, what the public would never have voted for if asked up front. See Monett, Jean.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
No will be asked to describe the world after a no vote. If there is no coordinated campaign and no agreed position for what happens next, wavering voters will hear 24 different stories about how we will operate outside the EU and sensibly decide to stick with the status quo.
The problem is you're asking No to define something that is completely out of their hands. The No campaign won't be negotiating new terms with the EU. And people will vote No for very different reasons. A libertarian wants free movement of people, but an end to all employment regulation; a socialist wants protection from foreign competition; a social conservative is principally concerned about mass migration. Agreeing a common position would limit, rather than broaden, potential appeal.
So what you're saying is that for most voters most outcomes after a No vote will be worse than the outcome after a Yes vote? I'm not sure that's going to broaden potential appeal.
That's the same thing for the Yes side. Out of the people voting Yes, some will be wanting a streamlined, pro-business EU, while others want a socialist utopia. Without reform, we don't know which direction it will go in, nor we will get a say. The Eurozone bloc vote will decide, and we'll have to submit.
Not really. For good or ill, most people have a sense of where they think the EU might go. It probably isn't one that many people are deliriously happy about, but it is at least a formed sense.
If they do, they are wrong. I follow the EU closely, and I don't have a good sense of where it will go. A lot will depend on the renegotiation.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
For me the big ones are:
- The Eurozone bloc vote being able to push through what they want - The threat to the City of London from anticapitalist regulation - Hundreds of thousands of non-EU immigrants being able to come here when they get EU passports - Billions of taxpayer money being spent on EU subsidies to make our food more expensive
Presumably, they would wish to keep the Channel Tunnel open. It would have to close if they were just waving through thousands of asylum seekers.
Which is exactly the situation we're in now. Anyone observing pictures from Calais can tell the French police aren't doing anything to stop the gangs of migrants stalking British trucks like lionesses do to a pack of gazelles. In many cases the migrants are openly breaking into British vehicles and the police are doing nothing.
France is trying to do just enough to stop the Tunnel being closed, while doing as little as possible to stop migrants leaving France for the UK.
Presumably, they would wish to keep the Channel Tunnel open. It would have to close if they were just waving through thousands of asylum seekers.
Which is exactly the situation we're in now. Anyone observing pictures from Calais can tell the French police aren't doing anything to stop the gangs of migrants stalking British trucks like lionesses do to a pack of gazelles. In many cases the migrants are openly breaking into British vehicles and the police are doing nothing.
France is trying to do just enough to stop the Tunnel being closed, while doing as little as possible to stop migrants leaving France for the UK.
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
By doing as little as possible the French are actually encouraging the migrants to gather at Calais..If needs be then the tunnel should close..and the Ferries may have to find other ports.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
For me the big ones are:
- The Eurozone bloc vote being able to push through what they want - The threat to the City of London from anticapitalist regulation - Hundreds of thousands of non-EU immigrants being able to come here when they get EU passports - Billions of taxpayer money being spent on EU subsidies to make our food more expensive
That is something that is confirmed with this recent leak (assuming it's true). The opt-out of the social chapter is something that we used to have before Blair opted back in. Given it's an opt out other countries were previously happy for us to have, it's clearly not got any of these issues about being "fundamental" to the EU. Yet now Cameron has apparently given up on merely getting back an opt-out we used to have? And this is after May opted back in to the common policing and the European Arrest Warrant.
This renegotiation is the once chance the Conservatives have to show that EU powers can go in both directions. Otherwise we will just be on a path of slow integration under the Tories and fast integration under Labour. For those of us that do not want the United Kingdom to be a mere satellite of the Eurozone, slowly getting sucked in, that is not a good sign.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
Even that is overblown, ask China's richest businessman about his multi-billion pound investments in the UK
"I don't think it is a big problem for me whether the UK is in the EU or not. It is a problem between the UK and Europe. The UK is relatively independent in the EU at present. It does not use the euro."
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Security for the tunnel really should require a form of ID check before being allowed into it. Now that could delay the train passengers but not the road transport. Damien Green always struck me as an odd choice as immigration minister. Pro EC and as tough as a lettuce leaf.
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Our asylum system was shown to be a complete disgrace when a criminal that had four prison sentences in six years could not be deported because it was not safe for him in Somalia, and then, after he killed a British police woman, he was found to be hiding out... in Somalia.
As someone who started life as a BINer - I want Cameron's negotiations to be successful - honestly I don't pay any attention to the *leaks* as there's so many vested interests involved.
Now I've moved to BOO, and settled on my position - I want a credible alternative on offer for those who are more sympathetic to BIN than I am.
Both sides need a credible offer for the floaters. I'm in two minds about Farage sailing his own boat. I think he's too marmite, but he's great at the air-war unsayable. BOO needs his voice.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
For me the big ones are:
- The Eurozone bloc vote being able to push through what they want - The threat to the City of London from anticapitalist regulation - Hundreds of thousands of non-EU immigrants being able to come here when they get EU passports - Billions of taxpayer money being spent on EU subsidies to make our food more expensive
That is something that is confirmed with this recent leak (assuming it's true). The opt-out of the social chapter is something that we used to have before Blair opted back in. Given it's an opt out other countries were previously happy for us to have, it's clearly not got any of these issues about being "fundamental" to the EU. Yet now Cameron has apparently given up on merely getting back an opt-out we used to have? And this is after May opted back in to the common policing and the European Arrest Warrant.
This renegotiation is the once chance the Conservatives have to show that EU powers can go in both directions. Otherwise we will just be on a path of slow integration under the Tories and fast integration under Labour. For those of us that do not want the United Kingdom to be a mere satellite of the Eurozone, slowly getting sucked in, that is not a good sign.
OGH "There was an unsourced report at the start of last week that 40% of the selectorate then had not voted – a figure that seemed very high."
Well if 25% do not vote (75% turnout) then it actually means that only 15% are yet to vote.
15% were yet to vote at the beginning of last week, that is.
Those who are actually yet to vote is probably now into single figures.
Agreed. There will be some votes "in the post". Also what will the turnout finish up as if we already are at 60%? In 2010 the membership turnout was 72% of the ballots issued. Maybe the "campaigning" still underway are fighting over as little as 5% of the votes yet to be cast?
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Security for the tunnel really should require a form of ID check before being allowed into it. Now that could delay the train passengers but not the road transport. Damien Green always struck me as an odd choice as immigration minister. Pro EC and as tough as a lettuce leaf.
Mr. Eagles, yes, but UKIP's raison d'etre is for the UK to leave the EU.
It's as bad as the SNP not having a considered currency position.
Harsh on the SNP, they did have a considered currency position, it just happened to be utter bollocks
In your opinion
In the opinion of Mark Carney who knows a few things about this, forgive me for attaching more weight to his opinion than yours or Alex Salmond's opinion.
I'd also point out that 55% of Scots thought the SNP's currency position was utter bollocks too,
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Security for the tunnel really should require a form of ID check before being allowed into it. Now that could delay the train passengers but not the road transport. Damien Green always struck me as an odd choice as immigration minister. Pro EC and as tough as a lettuce leaf.
EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.
Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.
As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.
It will be interesting to see how many of the £3ers get converted into party members. I think the Labour party should be hitting Freshers week hard to attract as many students as possible before the Corbyn anti-establishment label wears of, as it becomes apparent the same old Labour is still there under the surface.
For months the anti ukippers have been saying farage is toxic marmite and should not lead/play any significant role in the official OUT campaign..
Today he announces he won't be playing a part in the official OUT campaign, but will work with anyone who wants him to, and it's a vain, selfish ploy, destined to wreck the OUT campaign!
I've tuned out of the leadership campaign a bit, but when was the last ABC rally/hustings? Apart from the mockery of Andy's AA meeting - I can't think of another one that attracted any attention.
Corbyn deserves to win this contest on effort. Labour moderates have only themselves to blame. In spades.
That an MP from the fringes of the Party can end up as leader is just beyond lazy/complacent.
OGH "There was an unsourced report at the start of last week that 40% of the selectorate then had not voted – a figure that seemed very high."
Well if 25% do not vote (75% turnout) then it actually means that only 15% are yet to vote.
15% were yet to vote at the beginning of last week, that is.
Those who are actually yet to vote is probably now into single figures.
Agreed. There will be some votes "in the post". Also what will the turnout finish up as if we already are at 60%? In 2010 the membership turnout was 72% of the ballots issued. Maybe the "campaigning" still underway are fighting over as little as 5% of the votes yet to be cast?
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Security for the tunnel really should require a form of ID check before being allowed into it.
Just like the existing passport checks for train passengers using the Eurostar or vehicle drivers and occupants using Eurotunnel?
Mr. Eagles, yes, but UKIP's raison d'etre is for the UK to leave the EU.
It's as bad as the SNP not having a considered currency position.
Harsh on the SNP, they did have a considered currency position, it just happened to be utter bollocks
In your opinion
In the opinion of Mark Carney who knows a few things about this, forgive me for attaching more weight to his opinion than yours or Alex Salmond's opinion.
I'd also point out that 55% of Scots thought the SNP's currency position was utter bollocks too,
You think highly of Carney for sure. and 55% of those voting is more factually correct and not all voted that way based on the currency. As ever you live in fantasy land , Billy Liar had nothing on you.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the objection to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system for government business was that it might mean the emails might be accessed by unauthorised people, how does it help things to publish the emails for anyone to read?
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Security for the tunnel really should require a form of ID check before being allowed into it.
Just like the existing passport checks for train passengers using the Eurostar or vehicle drivers and occupants using Eurotunnel?
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Our asylum system was shown to be a complete disgrace when a criminal that had four prison sentences in six years could not be deported because it was not safe for him in Somalia, and then, after he killed a British police woman, he was found to be hiding out... in Somalia.
From what I read he came to the UK when 12 and was 'granted permission to stay' 6 years later. On the assumption that his crimes were committed as an adult then he had already been granted permission to stay before he committed them. So could he have been deported? Don't get me wrong, we should be harsher about deporting criminals where we can. Have things changed? Charles Clarke resigned over the prisoner release policy.
Jeremy Corbyn was a leading activist in the campaign for the release of two people who were jailed for their involvement in the bombing of a Jewish charity building and the Israeli embassy in London.
Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami were convicted of conspiracy to cause the bombings of the embassy and Balfour House after both buildings were targeted by car bombs in 1994.
The pair were jailed for 20 years and fought a lengthy legal battle to clear their names. Botmeh was finally released in 2008. He had claimed Israel carried out the bombings itself.
Mr Corbyn, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership race, repeatedly raised the case in Parliament as part of the long-running campaign to overturn their convictions as a miscarriage of justice.
I've tuned out of the leadership campaign a bit, but when was the last ABC rally/hustings? Apart from the mockery of Andy's AA meeting - I can't think of another one that attracted any attention. ...
OGH "There was an unsourced report at the start of last week that 40% of the selectorate then had not voted – a figure that seemed very high."
Well if 25% do not vote (75% turnout) then it actually means that only 15% are yet to vote.
15% were yet to vote at the beginning of last week, that is.
Those who are actually yet to vote is probably now into single figures.
Agreed. There will be some votes "in the post". Also what will the turnout finish up as if we already are at 60%? In 2010 the membership turnout was 72% of the ballots issued. Maybe the "campaigning" still underway are fighting over as little as 5% of the votes yet to be cast?
The final debate of the Labour leadership candidates will be held at the Sage in Gateshead. Sky News’ Labour’s Future: The Final Debate will be broadcast live at 7pm on Thursday, exactly one week before voting ends.
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
Our asylum system was shown to be a complete disgrace when a criminal that had four prison sentences in six years could not be deported because it was not safe for him in Somalia, and then, after he killed a British police woman, he was found to be hiding out... in Somalia.
From what I read he came to the UK when 12 and was 'granted permission to stay' 6 years later. On the assumption that his crimes were committed as an adult then he had already been granted permission to stay before he committed them. So could he have been deported? Don't get me wrong, we should be harsher about deporting criminals where we can. Have things changed? Charles Clarke resigned over the prisoner release policy.
If as appears he was on a permanent residency visa, it can be cancelled and he can indeed be thrown out the country, however its almost bound to run into an Article 8 challenge ("the right of a terrorist or criminal to his privacy and family life in his target country") , there are enough leftie hand-wringers that enjoy funding terrorists challenging their deportation.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
For months the anti ukippers have been saying farage is toxic marmite and should not lead/play any significant role in the official OUT campaign..
Today he announces he won't be playing a part in the official OUT campaign, but will work with anyone who wants him to, and it's a vain, selfish ploy, destined to wreck the OUT campaign!
There will be haters
Where did he say he wouldn't be playing a part in the official OUT campaign? AFAICT from the BBC report he is saying he won't lead the 'official' OUT campaign. Which is a slightly different matter.
As you say, haters will be haters, although I would add that blind lovers are blind lovers.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
But Norway is in the EEA and as such is in Schengen. It also through being in the EEA complies with all EU free movement of labour rules and single market rules and makes contributions to the EU budget (10th net biggest contributor). And it gets no votes. So what is the point of leaving to still comply but have no say? The EU will not go away if we leave - and it will still continue to influence us and we will still have to take consideration of it. Leaving the EU will not move Calais any further away or encourage France Greece or whoever else to be stricter in dealing with migrants heading for Calais.
Big political play from Yvette Cooper on Syrian Refugees.
Says we should take 10,000.
Does she say why the UK should take any at all? Does she say that we should only accept genuine asylum seekers or just anyone who has left Syria, regardless of their background?
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The UK got something like 300,000 lowly skilled migrants last year. (Gross immigration was over half a million, I think).
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
It seems to me that we still own 100sqm of Cyprus...
Wouldn't that just give them one border to cross (Turkish Cyprus > UK territory) rather than the whole of the EU? Or is the border area specially designated territory?
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
Stop complaining, some of us don't even have bolt holes abroad!
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
So given you've got a house in their transit country and one in their destination country how many are you planning to put up ?
That looks a very sensible view - the EC version is clearer.
Odd, though, that they didn't propose a similar change to the wording of the IndyRef question.
Yes, it evidently sensible that it should be changed to this.
I think the reason they didn't recommend the change to the IndyRef question is because the IndyRef one didn't have the confusing situation of the status quo being the "Yes" option.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
So given you've got a house in their transit country and one in their destination country how many are you planning to put up ?
They're human beings. I'm prepared to make my contribution towards accommodating them. Though I'm not sure that any of my homes would be particularly practical for the purpose so instead I'll do so through the conventional route of paying my taxes.
EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.
Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.
As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.
How long do you think JC has to succeed before the ruthless pragmatists make their decisions?
Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
So given you've got a house in their transit country and one in their destination country how many are you planning to put up ?
They're human beings. I'm prepared to make my contribution towards accommodating them. Though I'm not sure that any of my homes would be particularly practical for the purpose so instead I'll do so through the conventional route of paying my taxes.
Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.
Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.
The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.
It seems to me that we still own 100sqm of Cyprus...
Wouldn't that just give them one border to cross (Turkish Cyprus > UK territory) rather than the whole of the EU? Or is the border area specially designated territory?
It's more of a border than from Kent :-)
If the aim is to keep people safe with an intention to return, then it is logical imo.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
A slight adjustment to Holmes' dictum sums up the current Labour Party: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whoever remains, however improbable, must be the leader"
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.
There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
So given you've got a house in their transit country and one in their destination country how many are you planning to put up ?
They're human beings. I'm prepared to make my contribution towards accommodating them. Though I'm not sure that any of my homes would be particularly practical for the purpose so instead I'll do so through the conventional route of paying my taxes.
Desperate people will live anywhere.
Open up your front doors and let them in - you're rich enough to take the hit.
Comments
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/the-bbc-denied-the-great-european-disaster-movie-was-eu-funded-that-was-untrue.html
Is this why purdah was abandoned? So the EU could channel millions behind the scenes to the Yes side of the argument?
- immigration controls
- the creeping influence of decisions made to comply with EU judges/ECHR
- the concept of sovereignty at a State wide level
These seem to be incompatible with In for me. There will be downsides to leaving - I'm willing to accept these.
However, I have two others in the pipeline first, so it may take a little while.
Out needs to draw a dividing line between 'friendly' SMEs and 'tax-dodging' big business, the former for Out [less regulation/interference] the latter for In.
Business is not a homogenous block on this.
Big is more pro In and SMEs more pro Out.
Many PBers of other parties want UKIP to bury itself, and get lost, in a general national campaign, and so lose any credibility it still holds. Well,too bad for you lot.
- The Eurozone bloc vote being able to push through what they want
- The threat to the City of London from anticapitalist regulation
- Hundreds of thousands of non-EU immigrants being able to come here when they get EU passports
- Billions of taxpayer money being spent on EU subsidies to make our food more expensive
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/09/jonathan-isaby-how-brussels-squanders-1-billion-of-your-money-on-cartoons-and-video-games.html
And yet, In will be taken as a green light for ever closer union, and the federalists will pretend that was what was voted for.
If we left the EU, why would France continue to try to keep migrants/refugees in Calais?
He's right.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-would-increase-number-of-refugees-entering-uk-says-extory-minister-10480347.html
1. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/uk-britain-economy-pmi-idUKKCN0R134K20150901
Growth halts
2. Schenken worries; an EU without borders in crises as the migrant swarm increases.
3. With Labour in trouble, ALL news will focus on what the Tory government is/isn't doing.
A Corbyn win will only hog the headlines for a week or two.
Nice allies to have.
Once done, they're almost impossible to unpick and our country is changed forever.
France is trying to do just enough to stop the Tunnel being closed, while doing as little as possible to stop migrants leaving France for the UK.
"Can I see your passport please Sir/Madam"
"Oh dear, you don't appear to have a passport and/or valid visa, please wait here for the officer to escort you to the bus back to France"
We could do a lot of that now, except we piss around accepting asylum requests at the border when we are not the first country of safety, and then look all surprised when almost all of them fail, and then disgracefully, deport almost none of the failure cases.
http://nicktyrone.com/this-is-the-only-scenario-in-which-an-sdp-style-new-party-would-be-possible/
My only question is could Osborne get enough MP votes following his BTL tax change? Just saying..
Those who are actually yet to vote is probably now into single figures.
Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
This renegotiation is the once chance the Conservatives have to show that EU powers can go in both directions. Otherwise we will just be on a path of slow integration under the Tories and fast integration under Labour. For those of us that do not want the United Kingdom to be a mere satellite of the Eurozone, slowly getting sucked in, that is not a good sign.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31838296
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/86320/breaking/
Now I've moved to BOO, and settled on my position - I want a credible alternative on offer for those who are more sympathetic to BIN than I am.
Both sides need a credible offer for the floaters. I'm in two minds about Farage sailing his own boat. I think he's too marmite, but he's great at the air-war unsayable. BOO needs his voice.
Maybe the "campaigning" still underway are fighting over as little as 5% of the votes yet to be cast?
I'd also point out that 55% of Scots thought the SNP's currency position was utter bollocks too,
For months the anti ukippers have been saying farage is toxic marmite and should not lead/play any significant role in the official OUT campaign..
Today he announces he won't be playing a part in the official OUT campaign, but will work with anyone who wants him to, and it's a vain, selfish ploy, destined to wreck the OUT campaign!
There will be haters
Corbyn deserves to win this contest on effort. Labour moderates have only themselves to blame. In spades.
That an MP from the fringes of the Party can end up as leader is just beyond lazy/complacent.
As ever you live in fantasy land , Billy Liar had nothing on you.
Don't get me wrong, we should be harsher about deporting criminals where we can. Have things changed? Charles Clarke resigned over the prisoner release policy.
Says we should take 10,000.
Sky News’ Labour’s Future: The Final Debate will be broadcast live at 7pm on Thursday, exactly one week before voting ends.
I guess that is what Yvette regards as our 'fair share.'
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
As you say, haters will be haters, although I would add that blind lovers are blind lovers.
So what is the point of leaving to still comply but have no say?
The EU will not go away if we leave - and it will still continue to influence us and we will still have to take consideration of it.
Leaving the EU will not move Calais any further away or encourage France Greece or whoever else to be stricter in dealing with migrants heading for Calais.
Odd, though, that they didn't propose a similar change to the wording of the IndyRef question.
It seems to me that we still own 100sqm of Cyprus...
I think the reason they didn't recommend the change to the IndyRef question is because the IndyRef one didn't have the confusing situation of the status quo being the "Yes" option.
Osborne successfully rebalancing the economy I see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11836202/Pound-stumbles-as-UK-manufacturing-lurches-towards-stagnation.html
Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?
Buy Jobbik.
If the aim is to keep people safe with an intention to return, then it is logical imo.
Bush 9%
Carson 9%
Rubio 6%
Huckabee 6%
Walker 5%
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trump-clinton-lead-primary-matchups-bush-ties-carson-for-runner-up/
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21656230-hungary-shuts-door
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.
There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
Open up your front doors and let them in - you're rich enough to take the hit.