Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
Well at least he is open about his priorities. It is nice to see that a Marxist is not chasing after money ....
Three month window here will be interesting - probably in a slo-mo car crash way
It is, to be fair, a little early to conclude that the Corbyn effect is as puny as this suggests. Matt Singh’s work for The Times suggests that the positive effect of any new leader peaks at around the three month mark, before declining gradually thereafter. So we need to come back and revisit this question in December, when on past evidence we would expect Labour to have put on about five per cent. If they haven’t, or if they have indeed stood still or gone backwards, our initial foreboding based on these numbers will have been borne out. For now, the weakest polling boost in the recent history of Labour’s new Opposition leaders is something to record in itself.
"We should all be cautious before reaching any firm conclusions. The data is still fragmented, patchy and scarce. But from what we do know, and what we can already see, only one judgement is possible: Labour has somehow found the best possible way to
Hague and IDS and arguably Howard also got no bounce. The bounces for Labour under Foot and Ed Miliband happened before they were elected
Yes and what was the result? IMO 2001 was a worse election result for the Tories than 1997 - in 1997 the party was bitterly divided, tired and in power for nearly two decades. A halfway decent leader (Hague as he is now would count) could and should have been able to make some progress on that, but besides the fuel strikes of 2000 no dent was ever made and there was no real seat change in 2001.
IDS would probably not have recorded the seat changes that Howard did while Miliband was so crap he lost seats and the government gained seats and share for the first time since the nineteenth century (!) - and Foot presided over what is currently the worst election result for the modern Labour Party.
For the new Labour Party to be worse than that company. Wow.
I don't disagree though Corbyn is polling slightly better than Hague got and Foot got in 1983 and about the same as Ed M got in May and IDS polled and slightly worse than Howard
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
Given the Labour Party like the country it left behind is mired in debt that sounds like a much more important meeting than an artificial confrontation ceremony there is no obligation to attend.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
I agree to an extent, which is why I strongly support greater democratisation within the EU. The sticking block there are the national governments as much as anyone, who would end up losers.
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
@Lennon - That's not quite what I meant: it's not a policy roadmap for a post Leave Britain. It's painting a picture of what sort of governance and choices we'd then have.
This really isn't a leap in the dark. We aren't establishing a new constitution or country. All we are doing is returning to the status-quo ante-bellum prior to 1973 when we were a free and independent democracy.
It's not about mapping out one particular choice; it's about mapping out which new choices we'd be able to make. Immigration is a good example to pick: Leave doesn't equal closing our borders for good; it means we have sovereignty over those decisions. Although I confess, in practice, the popular move would be for a sharp short-medium term tightening.
It could, for example, be perfectly possible that in future a government gets elected on a platform of greatly increased and freer immigration, with higher permits and visas. But we could decide how many, from whom and why - as well as reverse that decision if we subsequently changed our minds.
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
But those 'policies already in place' didn't happen by accident did they? And it was always intended they should lead on to more integration. That was the EU' strategy from the very start! Your post is incredibly disingenuous.
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Are you open to persuasion?
No. And your point is?
Why is it wrong for TSE to imply he is not open to persuasion and thus a traitor to his country collaborating with an enemy force but it is perfectly OK for you to not be open to persuasion?
Because that is exactly what he is doing by supporting the EU.
I am happy to be regarded as fixed in my opinions given I have arrived at them after more than 2 decades of research and observation. TSE may be happy to be regarded as fixed in his. The question of whether or not I regard Pro EU supporters as Quislings does not revolve around the strength of their beliefs but around the fundamental principle of those beliefs themselves. Certain things are beyond the pale and this is one of them.
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
STAY will win the eu-ref, by about 10 points, but fairly soon after the EU will start doing *outrageous* things - common taxes, common army, common migration - fully expecting us to join in, on the understandable grounds that we have now voted for the EU twice (more than anyone else) and this is what the EU is meant to be. No UK government will be able to submit to this level of integration, and we will end up quitting anyway (or moving to *associate* status). All of this will happen in short order, and possibly without a third referendum. I'd be interested in hearing alternative prognoses, as the above looks well-nigh inevitable.
The point of our negotiations is that we do not want ever closer monetary fiscal and political union. If we are not set apart from that then I imagine we would vote Out. The ever closer union of the EU / Eurozone is inevitable. The EU would continue to exist and do what it collectively wanted. Assuming we were able to joint the EEA then things would be similar to now as far as the single market is concerned. We are not in Schengen or the Euro so this is not an issue. What is is that the centralised EU would continue on our doorstep. Can we continue to be a conduit a major conduit for inward investment into the EU ? People like Hollande will not like us having our cake and eat it... hence his comments.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
I care about several aspects, but like TheScreamingEagles, it is mostly economics and living standards that drives me. I think we will be a wealthy country relative to others whatever happens, but there are various standards of wealthy. In terms of how that matters to the EU:
Pros - We can get better market access as an EU member than we can through a free trade deal - We can help shape common standards within the European market
Cons - There is a big danger of the Eurozone bloc vote pursuing negative anti-business policies over us and voting them through without our input - We can't sign free trade deals with other increasingly important markets without the French signing off - We don't get an independent voice on international trade talks - It will be expensive to pay for all the housing, infrastructure and public services we need if we can't restrict low income immigration from Eastern Europe/Africa/Middle East
Right now the Cons outweigh the Pros, but I remain hopeful that Cameron will pull another win out the bag and address most of the cons. Then we can get the best of both worlds.
STAY will win the eu-ref, by about 10 points, but fairly soon after the EU will start doing *outrageous* things - common taxes, common army, common migration - fully expecting us to join in, on the understandable grounds that we have now voted for the EU twice (more than anyone else) and this is what the EU is meant to be.
No UK government will be able to submit to this level of integration, and we will end up quitting anyway (or moving to *associate* status). All of this will happen in short order, and possibly without a third referendum.
I'd be interested in hearing alternative prognoses, as the above looks well-nigh inevitable.
I think a vote to Remain carries a strong risk of the UK tacitly endorsing all of that in future.
We think we will be voting for the status quo mitigated with Cameron's concessions. In fact, we simply don't know what we'll get and there are plenty of signs and portents in the language of the EU and its leaders of things to come.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
I agree to an extent, which is why I strongly support greater democratisation within the EU. The sticking block there are the national governments as much as anyone, who would end up losers.
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
But would you really be happy to have socialist governance over the UK because the French, Spanish and Italians voted that way, even if we voted for capitalism?
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Do you not think that implicitly equating the EU to the Third Reich, as you do with your Quisling comments, you're over-egging it a touch?
Nope because the Quisling term has moved far beyond its original WW2 origins. The implication is of one who supports an external power in the subjugation of one's country. It seems a perfect term to me.
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Are you open to persuasion?
No. And your point is?
Why is it wrong for TSE to imply he is not open to persuasion and thus a traitor to his country collaborating with an enemy force but it is perfectly OK for you to not be open to persuasion?
Because that is exactly what he is doing by supporting the EU.
I am happy to be regarded as fixed in my opinions given I have arrived at them after more than 2 decades of research and observation. TSE may be happy to be regarded as fixed in his. The question of whether or not I regard Pro EU supporters as Quislings does not revolve around the strength of their beliefs but around the fundamental principle of those beliefs themselves. Certain things are beyond the pale and this is one of them.
While I think for everyone else linking the current situation with the Third Reich which is what your Quisling comment means is beyond the pale too. You are not going to win 51% of the vote with that strategy so like Labour I can only assume you have given up on any pretence of trying to win and want to go for self-pleasuring instead.
Is it only me who couldn't care less about Corbyn not seeing the Queen for his induction to the Privy Council?
The fact is that Corbyn doesn't want to bend the knee to the Queen as he's a committed republican and quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the Queen feels the same back. Not only that but an Order in Council as an alternative is not only possible but happens fairly often, just not normally for senior politicians.
Yes Corbyn could attend a ceremony and cross his fingers behind his back or something similar but to do it by Order in Council rather than a confrontation with the monarch seems like a reasonably civil face-saving compromise for everyone. There are bigger issues than this. Like any other issue.
It's the carp PR: he's throwing hostages to the wolves when he does not need to..
Him saying he'd never press the button under any circumstances, sees no use for the military as a whole and that the death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy ... those are unforgivable. Responding to an archaic institution by going for an option of an Order In Council which already has precedent? Not such a big deal.
If there was no option for an Order in Council and that was unprecedented it would be different. But he's not even breaking precedent here. This is just froth.
Froth he is inviting for no reason, because the 'principled' stance makes no sense given his perfectly reasonable compromise in order to be an MP at all. His stance can remain as principled as ever, he could have had all this resolved already, and an easy attack against him would have been avoided. Instead it's a story. Not a big one, certainly, but an unnecessary one, given he isn't proving any point by dragging things out. There are much better things he could be focusing on, and while he cannot help the media not focusing on everything he wants to and needs to be focused on, he seems to be purposefully inviting it.
A Conservative Councillor’s proposals for the Union Jack flag to be flown at schools across Calderdale and for the national anthem to be sung in assemblies has been rejected.
Labour councillors in Calderdale, supported by the Liberal Democrats, rejected the idea of flying the Union Flag on public buildings as “inappropriate”.
Coun Benton said these things, we were assured, were likely to make us more divisive and ‘promote nasty, nationalistic tendencies’
Meanwhile here in the States virtually every building flies the flag.
Yeah but we just don't do that in the UK, we wear our patriotism lightly and don't worship the flag like Americans do. The Union Flag is normally only flown on public buildings on certain Flag Days. Matey in Scotland is just playing games. This is one of the things that annoy me about Ulster loyalists: they want to be considered British but then obsess about the flag in a totally unbritish way.
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
It doesn't take that long to get to Scotland.
Perhaps he's hitchhiking?
It's a pathetic excuse. He can easily travel the following day. He just wans to get an extra cheer from his electorate. Has he woken up yet to what unexpected issues arise when you are a party leader and opposition leader as well?
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
I agree to an extent, which is why I strongly support greater democratisation within the EU. The sticking block there are the national governments as much as anyone, who would end up losers.
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
I would view EU-wide democracy as essentially sham democracy. Multi-national political groupings that almost no-one identifies with at national level trading favours with each other.
I think that integration leads inevitably to more integration to deal with the resultant crises.
May I ask a serious question to those on here, and there seems to be plenty, why do you dislike Farage so much? I find it peculiar to read that some would vote IN because of him.
I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just curious to hear your thinking. I know him but not well enough to consider us friends, he's a very bight man in conversation.
Farage made it his purpose to try and destroy the Conservative Party, as his way up the greasy pole. He made it personal...so it's not too hard to reciprocate. And you might take a kinder view of his abilities than I do, but they wouldn't get him a rank above a junior Minister in this Govt. And my money would be on him to be first to resign from that Govt. amidst some scandal or other.
Farage is all about - only about - Farage. He is skin stretched tight over an enormous ego. That he chooses to parade himself to the public on one of the biggest issues facing the country is natural, but his presence debases the debate. There will indeed be good numbers of people who will find it difficult to vote LEAVE if they know that means a gurning, self-satisfied Farage plastered over their TV screens the next day.
I've met Farage, and used to have some sympathy with him but I think sensible UKIPers - if they really want to leave the EU - now need to overthrow Farage, if they want it to happen.
While I think for everyone else linking the current situation with the Third Reich which is what your Quisling comment means is beyond the pale too. You are not going to win 51% of the vote with that strategy so like Labour I can only assume you have given up on any pretence of trying to win and want to go for self-pleasuring instead.
And I think that, given you have regularly said on here that you would vote to stay in, I don't really care what your view is. Your sort of willful ignorance makes your opinions of little value to the debate.
A Conservative Councillor’s proposals for the Union Jack flag to be flown at schools across Calderdale and for the national anthem to be sung in assemblies has been rejected.
Labour councillors in Calderdale, supported by the Liberal Democrats, rejected the idea of flying the Union Flag on public buildings as “inappropriate”.
Coun Benton said these things, we were assured, were likely to make us more divisive and ‘promote nasty, nationalistic tendencies’
Meanwhile here in the States virtually every building flies the flag.
Yeah but we just don't do that in the UK, we wear our patriotism lightly and don't worship the flag like Americans do. The Union Flag is normally only flown on public buildings on certain Flag Days. Matey in Scotland is just playing games. This is one of the things that annoy me about Ulster loyalists: they want to be considered British but then obsess about the flag in a totally unbritish way.
Non-Ulster folk don't need to obsess about the Flag, because no one's trying to make us join a different country. If we were in their position, we'd obsess about it in the same way.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
What a monstrous stupid attitude. Parents have rights to see their children too. I understand more weight should be given to the child, but there needs to be some consideration given to the parents. How can the state take away someone's child based on a mistake and refuse to give it back?
If we have any lawyers present, I'd love to hear how I can help this poor couple right this terrible wrong. Would it be best to write to the council? Is there more that can be done to support their case?
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
Is it past his bed time?
Liz should offer him the use of the Royal flight to make sure he get's to Scotland on time and in comfort. Squirm, little man, squirm.
STAY will win the eu-ref, by about 10 points, but fairly soon after the EU will start doing *outrageous* things - common taxes, common army, common migration - fully expecting us to join in, on the understandable grounds that we have now voted for the EU twice (more than anyone else) and this is what the EU is meant to be.
No UK government will be able to submit to this level of integration, and we will end up quitting anyway (or moving to *associate* status). All of this will happen in short order, and possibly without a third referendum.
I'd be interested in hearing alternative prognoses, as the above looks well-nigh inevitable.
Agree with all of that. Would add that calls for surrendering the rebate etc will start about 5 minutes after the exit poll is announced.
It is a big concern. When the French expect us to join Schengen and the Germans expect us to join the Euro down the line, it is a big warning sign they will not respect our independence indefinitely. And even if we have legal opt-outs on those things, it suggest they will be willing to force into other areas where we do not. This is why we need binding protections on things like QMV, so we can't get outvoted by the Eurozone every time.
They know the concession they've given Cameron for a paper tweak to the UK in a future treaty on 'ever closer union' is meaningless.
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Are you open to persuasion?
No. And your point is?
Why is it wrong for TSE to imply he is not open to persuasion and thus a traitor to his country collaborating with an enemy force but it is perfectly OK for you to not be open to persuasion?
Because that is exactly what he is doing by supporting the EU.
I am happy to be regarded as fixed in my opinions given I have arrived at them after more than 2 decades of research and observation. TSE may be happy to be regarded as fixed in his. The question of whether or not I regard Pro EU supporters as Quislings does not revolve around the strength of their beliefs but around the fundamental principle of those beliefs themselves. Certain things are beyond the pale and this is one of them.
Pathetic and ignorant comments. As a country we are involved in a mass of treaties and deals. We always will be. Slagging people off as traitors only shows you up as the scoundrel.
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Do you not think that implicitly equating the EU to the Third Reich, as you do with your Quisling comments, you're over-egging it a touch?
Nope because the Quisling term has moved far beyond its original WW2 origins. The implication is of one who supports an external power in the subjugation of one's country. It seems a perfect term to me.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country
Sorry to go on topic at this late stage. I don't think there's any doubt when Cameron goes - providing events don't intervene. The Spectator article last week which laid out a timetable of him announcing his resignation in spring 2019, with a leadership election occuring over that summer in time for a new leader to go to Tory conference 2019, seemed like it had been firmly briefed. The yweren't guessing - they've been told.
The idea that Cameron might go into the 2020 election and then stand down after he's won is ludicrous.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 22 secs22 seconds ago New TNS Scottish parl. poll: SNP 56% (-2), Lab 21% (-2), Tories 12% (N/C), Lib Dems 6% (+1).
SNPonthewayout
Loyalist zoomers will be tearing their hair out at this poll. Despite one of the most concerted smear campaigns in recent political history against a single party, despite making up a vast pool of drooling nonsense, the electorate is too canny to fall for it.
The SNP remain clear favourites with the voters and this poll also shows one of the best every List votes for the SNP (51%).
I can just picture the local zoomers like ScottP maniacally bashing his keyboard and screaming "SNP BAAAAAAAD" to no avail.
On a personal level I think the Pros outweigh the Cons but am open to change my mind. Not likely to do so as the Pros already outweigh the Cons (narrowly) so would have to see something new to swing against. Hannan's recent article about the possibility of signing unilateral trade deals is the one that got me to think the most and that's my top Con.
Top Pros: Reciprocal Free Movement across the EU Access to shape the Common Market Access to the Common Market
Top Cons: Can't sign trade deals unilaterally Laws that have little to do with Common Market being implemented by the EU (eg Working Time Directive etc) CAP
For me the decider is Free Movement. I love the fact we have reciprocal Free Movement and I imagine it would be lost if we left so I want to Remain. If I was against it I'd be Out. I've actually put access to the common market as my third reason to stay, I have confidence but not certainty that we could negotiate a new trade deal to gain access if we left.
'This is why we need binding protections on things like QMV...'
Of course if you spin back to the 1960s one argument the FO used to use for joining was precisely that we could use our membership - with the veto it then included - to stop the EC/EU from damaging our economic interests,
Once we were in of course they lost little time in telling us we had to give the veto up in order to maintain our 'influence'.
While I think for everyone else linking the current situation with the Third Reich which is what your Quisling comment means is beyond the pale too. You are not going to win 51% of the vote with that strategy so like Labour I can only assume you have given up on any pretence of trying to win and want to go for self-pleasuring instead.
And I think that, given you have regularly said on here that you would vote to stay in, I don't really care what your view is. Your sort of willful ignorance makes your opinions of little value to the debate.
I'm the sort of voter you need to win over to get a majority to leave.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
For those who are worried, I see no reason at all to believe that a Leave vote would be followed by UKIP sweeping to power.
Daft economic policies could be imposed on the UK by the EU if we Remain. If we Leave, the choice is ours.
Corbyn has announced he that can't attend this evening's Privy Council meeting because he's travelling to a Labour fund raising event in Scotland tomorrow.
Is it past his bed time?
Liz should offer him the use of the Royal flight to make sure he get's to Scotland on time and in comfort. Squirm, little man, squirm.
Apart from helicopters I do not think there is a royal flight. He would probably rather travel on aeroflot anyway. No doubt if HS2 were available he could have travelled in comfort.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
For those who are worried, I see no reason at all to believe that a Leave vote would be followed by UKIP sweeping to power.
Daft economic policies could be imposed on the UK by the EU if we Remain. If we Leave, the choice is ours.
Almost all economic policy requires unanimity and is not imposed by the EU.
The exception is where nations like Greece are on a lifeline and are told what to do or funding will be cut. That has sod all to do with the EU and is just blackmail. That doesn't apply to us unless Labour get in again and we have to go cap in hand to the IMF in which case we'll be told what to do whether we're in the EU or not.
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
On a personal level I think the Pros outweigh the Cons but am open to change my mind. Not likely to do so as the Pros already outweigh the Cons (narrowly) so would have to see something new to swing against. Hannan's recent article about the possibility of signing unilateral trade deals is the one that got me to think the most and that's my top Con.
Top Pros: Reciprocal Free Movement across the EU Access to shape the Common Market Access to the Common Market
Top Cons: Can't sign trade deals unilaterally Laws that have little to do with Common Market being implemented by the EU (eg Working Time Directive etc) CAP
For me the decider is Free Movement. I love the fact we have reciprocal Free Movement and I imagine it would be lost if we left so I want to Remain. If I was against it I'd be Out. I've actually put access to the common market as my third reason to stay, I have confidence but not certainty that we could negotiate a new trade deal to gain access if we left.
The only way free movement would be lost is if the EU wants to be vengeful - and cut off their nose to spite their face. Of course, they might still feel they need to do that, because if there is not seen to be any downside to losing the EU's much vaunted right to free movement in reality, their whole house of cards starts to collapse....
While I think for everyone else linking the current situation with the Third Reich which is what your Quisling comment means is beyond the pale too. You are not going to win 51% of the vote with that strategy so like Labour I can only assume you have given up on any pretence of trying to win and want to go for self-pleasuring instead.
And I think that, given you have regularly said on here that you would vote to stay in, I don't really care what your view is. Your sort of willful ignorance makes your opinions of little value to the debate.
I'm the sort of voter you need to win over to get a majority to leave.
I will win over no one. Nor do I intend to try. I have no confidence that Leave will win exactly because of the sort of willful ignorance displayed by some on here who claim they might be persuaded. I don't claim to know how to win the referendum so all I can do is point out the lies being told by the other side and put some of the facts. But in my heart I don't actually believe I can make a blind bit of difference to the end result. Nor do I have any idea what that result will be.
What I do know is that the sorts of fatuous or dishonest arguments put forward by people like TSE or Flighpath deserve to be shot down so I content myself with that.
Cameron made it clear, in terms, that he would not seek a third term.
Period.
Seeking re-election and then immediately standing down would be preposterous. The only way he stands as Tory leader in 2020 is if he changes his mind and tells us thus.
However, revisiting the reports from the time, he did also make it clear that it would be "a full second term" and yesterday he talked of 10 years.
So I wonder if he does intend to serve as PM right up to the day after polling but with the Tories electing a new party leader (and therefore prospective PM) some time prior to May 2020 (say autumn 2019) to take over should they win a third term. I can see no reason why that couldn't happen. John Major was briefly PM but not Tory leader when he took on the b*stards. It has some advantages - the electorate know who they're getting and don't get someone foisted on them, but the obvious disadvantage that the new guy doesn't have any time to "prove himself".
'This is why we need binding protections on things like QMV...'
Of course if you spin back to the 1960s one argument the FO used to use for joining was precisely that we could use our membership - with the veto it then included - to stop the EC/EU from damaging our economic interests,
Once we were in of course they lost little time in telling us we had to give the veto up in order to maintain our 'influence'.
Yes past mistakes were absurd and some were inexcusable most pathetically Blair giving up part of our hard won rebate for nothing at all concrete in return.
Thatcher and Cameron together understand that power gains influence. We are a powerful nation, a powerful market and a net contributor to the EU. Threatening to leave or cut funding if we don't get what we want leads other nations to begrudgingly give us what we want.
Blair made the naive mistake of believing that if you were everybodies mate it would gain us influence. He was truly a weak poodle and got taken advantage of. Poodle ought to apply more to how he was to Europe than how he was to Bush IMO.
We need to treat the EU as what it is, a foreign body full of foreign nations where we need to aggressively stand up for what we want if we are to get what we want. Not some cozy club.
On a personal level I think the Pros outweigh the Cons but am open to change my mind. Not likely to do so as the Pros already outweigh the Cons (narrowly) so would have to see something new to swing against. Hannan's recent article about the possibility of signing unilateral trade deals is the one that got me to think the most and that's my top Con.
Top Pros: Reciprocal Free Movement across the EU Access to shape the Common Market Access to the Common Market
Top Cons: Can't sign trade deals unilaterally Laws that have little to do with Common Market being implemented by the EU (eg Working Time Directive etc) CAP
For me the decider is Free Movement. I love the fact we have reciprocal Free Movement and I imagine it would be lost if we left so I want to Remain. If I was against it I'd be Out. I've actually put access to the common market as my third reason to stay, I have confidence but not certainty that we could negotiate a new trade deal to gain access if we left.
If we left but were members of the EEA then there would be no effect on freedom of movement. I know this is not an argument many 'Outers' like but since migration is not one of my top concerns it seems like a pretty good end result.
It takes about an hour to fly from Heathrow to Glasgow or Edingburgh....why is CORBYN using the visit to miss out on the PC meeting...is he frit of the octogenarian..
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Do you not think that implicitly equating the EU to the Third Reich, as you do with your Quisling comments, you're over-egging it a touch?
Nope because the Quisling term has moved far beyond its original WW2 origins. The implication is of one who supports an external power in the subjugation of one's country. It seems a perfect term to me.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
For those who are worried, I see no reason at all to believe that a Leave vote would be followed by UKIP sweeping to power.
Daft economic policies could be imposed on the UK by the EU if we Remain. If we Leave, the choice is ours.
Almost all economic policy requires unanimity and is not imposed by the EU.
The exception is where nations like Greece are on a lifeline and are told what to do or funding will be cut. That has sod all to do with the EU and is just blackmail. That doesn't apply to us unless Labour get in again and we have to go cap in hand to the IMF in which case we'll be told what to do whether we're in the EU or not.
But that's not true. A lot of restrictions and regulations that now affect our financial sector and banking/mortgage regulation originate from the EU, several in direct opposition to the wishes of the UK government. There are also plenty of restrictions on VAT and local taxation. When I say 'economic' I mean that affect our economy incl. financial policy and microeconomics, rather than direct macroeconomics (like quant easing and interest rates) btw.
Given the strength of the "guarantee" we got on a review of CAP if we gave some rebate back, nothing happened, and the assurance given that our money would not be used to bail out Greece, it was, the EU's word is meaningless.
I could easily see a move to harmonise further taxes in future - incl. corporation tax - following a Remain vote. It'd only take one Labour, or very wet/naive Tory government, to not notice and we're there.
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
Fine. Then put it back with its parents then.
This is about them saving face. I would have thought that, in this case, the parents have a strong right of appeal.
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
Fine. Then put it back with its parents then.
Don't get me wrong, I feel tremendous sympathy with the baby's parents. I can hardly think of anything worse to have happened to them.
But after three years, it is to be hoped that the baby is happily settled into its adoptive family. Removing him or her from that family to live with people who are, in effect, strangers, would probably be very traumatic for the child.
While I think for everyone else linking the current situation with the Third Reich which is what your Quisling comment means is beyond the pale too. You are not going to win 51% of the vote with that strategy so like Labour I can only assume you have given up on any pretence of trying to win and want to go for self-pleasuring instead.
And I think that, given you have regularly said on here that you would vote to stay in, I don't really care what your view is. Your sort of willful ignorance makes your opinions of little value to the debate.
I'm the sort of voter you need to win over to get a majority to leave.
I will win over no one. Nor do I intend to try. I have no confidence that Leave will win exactly because of the sort of willful ignorance displayed by some on here who claim they might be persuaded. I don't claim to know how to win the referendum so all I can do is point out the lies being told by the other side and put some of the facts. But in my heart I don't actually believe I can make a blind bit of difference to the end result. Nor do I have any idea what that result will be.
What I do know is that the sorts of fatuous or dishonest arguments put forward by people like TSE or Flighpath deserve to be shot down so I content myself with that.
To be honest Richard, whilst I share a lot of your frustrations at times, it is probably better for you to remain silent on this matter.
I think we can still win, but not if we do counterproductive things off the back of fatalistic assumptions.
During the Conservative conference, Peter Wilding (Founder and Director of key europhile group British Influence) stated (on BBC) that Cameron had settled the negotiation with europe and he should announce what had already been agreed and then have the referendum as Cameron's demands had been met.
Came as a surprise to me as the line out of european govts is that they have no clear idea what we are asking for. All a bit puzzling, frankly.
On a personal level I think the Pros outweigh the Cons but am open to change my mind. Not likely to do so as the Pros already outweigh the Cons (narrowly) so would have to see something new to swing against. Hannan's recent article about the possibility of signing unilateral trade deals is the one that got me to think the most and that's my top Con.
Top Pros: Reciprocal Free Movement across the EU Access to shape the Common Market Access to the Common Market
Top Cons: Can't sign trade deals unilaterally Laws that have little to do with Common Market being implemented by the EU (eg Working Time Directive etc) CAP
For me the decider is Free Movement. I love the fact we have reciprocal Free Movement and I imagine it would be lost if we left so I want to Remain. If I was against it I'd be Out. I've actually put access to the common market as my third reason to stay, I have confidence but not certainty that we could negotiate a new trade deal to gain access if we left.
The only way free movement would be lost is if the EU wants to be vengeful - and cut off their nose to spite their face. Of course, they might still feel they need to do that, because if there is not seen to be any downside to losing the EU's much vaunted right to free movement in reality, their whole house of cards starts to collapse....
once you are in the Schengen area you have free movement.
My preference for Leave is based on politics, not economics. Whether the UK Leaves or Remains, it will remain a wealthy country. Or if it doesn't, it will be down to daft economic policies, rather than being a member of the EU or not.
I do however, strongly believe that the UK is as capable of governing itself as are countries like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and that EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves at the expense of national political institutions. That seems undemocratic to me, and I see no sign of that changing.
I agree to an extent, which is why I strongly support greater democratisation within the EU. The sticking block there are the national governments as much as anyone, who would end up losers.
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
I would view EU-wide democracy as essentially sham democracy. Multi-national political groupings that almost no-one identifies with at national level trading favours with each other.
I think that integration leads inevitably to more integration to deal with the resultant crises.
In one sense, you're right: no-one identifies with these multinational groups. However, I'd disagree that it'd be sham democracy for two reasons.
Firstly, the multi-national groups do generally have a sense of coherence and while the public might not identify with the group, they do identify with (or at least recognise) their local representatives of them.
But secondly, and more importantly, I think that the dynamics of a genuinely democratic EU - with an executive reliant on, and drawn from, the parliament - would create the dynamics necessary to make any democracy work. It would necessarily be a quite a pure representative democracy with few direct elements, more equivalent to the Commons in the eighteenth century than the twenty-first, but it would work all the same.
Absolute moral certainty combined with vituperation of the unpersuaded is an over rated selling technique.......
Like many of my generation i was - and remain - in favour of a 'Common Market' - but since attempts to extend that beyond goods to services (where we have a competitive advantage) is persistently delayed or blocked I grow weary of the whole thing.
Add to that the CAP - as the ECONOMIST once marvellously described 'to the French, the EU's crowning glory, to the British a protectionist monstrosity fit only for destruction' - which we gave up a chunk of our rebate for a reform that never happened, and I wonder.
I suspect this migrant mess - exacerbated by (who says they haven't got a sense of humour, possible Nobel prize winner) Merkel has shifted many 'on balance stay' towards 'leave'.....
It is not 'the undecided'. The Quisling reference was to those who are actively pro EU rather than just unsure - the Tory Europhiles - and came as part of the discussion about strongly pro EU Tory MPs. TSE decided to include himself in the description as a classic case of playing the victim. If he wants to be considered a Quisling that is his affair. But in the terms of the discussion that implies he is no longer open to persuasion in any way.
Do you not think that implicitly equating the EU to the Third Reich, as you do with your Quisling comments, you're over-egging it a touch?
Nope because the Quisling term has moved far beyond its original WW2 origins. The implication is of one who supports an external power in the subjugation of one's country. It seems a perfect term to me.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country
During the Conservative conference, Peter Wilding (Founder and Director of key europhile group British Influence) stated (on BBC) that Cameron had settled the negotiation with europe and he should announce what had already been agreed and then have the referendum as Cameron's demands had been met.
Came as a surprise to me as the line out of european govts is that they have no clear idea what we are asking for. All a bit puzzling, frankly.
It not puzzling when you realise he is talking cobblers.
Comments
IDS would probably not have recorded the seat changes that Howard did while Miliband was so crap he lost seats and the government gained seats and share for the first time since the nineteenth century (!) - and Foot presided over what is currently the worst election result for the modern Labour Party.
For the new Labour Party to be worse than that company. Wow.
I don't disagree though Corbyn is polling slightly better than Hague got and Foot got in 1983 and about the same as Ed M got in May and IDS polled and slightly worse than Howard
I'd disagree that the "EU institutions are bent on accumulating power to themselves", which implies a power-grab in isolation. In practice, I'd suggest it's a natural response to policies already in place: the EU *needs* centralised power to be able to deal with the natural consequences of Schengen or the Euro.
From last November
@piersmorgan: If Liverpool sack Rodgers and bring in Klopp, I will self-immolate.
That's not quite what I meant: it's not a policy roadmap for a post Leave Britain. It's painting a picture of what sort of governance and choices we'd then have.
This really isn't a leap in the dark. We aren't establishing a new constitution or country. All we are doing is returning to the status-quo ante-bellum prior to 1973 when we were a free and independent democracy.
It's not about mapping out one particular choice; it's about mapping out which new choices we'd be able to make. Immigration is a good example to pick: Leave doesn't equal closing our borders for good; it means we have sovereignty over those decisions. Although I confess, in practice, the popular move would be for a sharp short-medium term tightening.
It could, for example, be perfectly possible that in future a government gets elected on a platform of greatly increased and freer immigration, with higher permits and visas. But we could decide how many, from whom and why - as well as reverse that decision if we subsequently changed our minds.
But those 'policies already in place' didn't happen by accident did they? And it was always intended they should lead on to more integration. That was the EU' strategy from the very start! Your post is incredibly disingenuous.
I am happy to be regarded as fixed in my opinions given I have arrived at them after more than 2 decades of research and observation. TSE may be happy to be regarded as fixed in his. The question of whether or not I regard Pro EU supporters as Quislings does not revolve around the strength of their beliefs but around the fundamental principle of those beliefs themselves. Certain things are beyond the pale and this is one of them.
Pros
- We can get better market access as an EU member than we can through a free trade deal
- We can help shape common standards within the European market
Cons
- There is a big danger of the Eurozone bloc vote pursuing negative anti-business policies over us and voting them through without our input
- We can't sign free trade deals with other increasingly important markets without the French signing off
- We don't get an independent voice on international trade talks
- It will be expensive to pay for all the housing, infrastructure and public services we need if we can't restrict low income immigration from Eastern Europe/Africa/Middle East
Right now the Cons outweigh the Pros, but I remain hopeful that Cameron will pull another win out the bag and address most of the cons. Then we can get the best of both worlds.
We think we will be voting for the status quo mitigated with Cameron's concessions. In fact, we simply don't know what we'll get and there are plenty of signs and portents in the language of the EU and its leaders of things to come.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/couple-who-were-wrongly-accused-of-abuse-unlikely-to-see-their-child-again-a6685471.html
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/02/jeremy-corbyn-hen-party-blackpool-train-delivers-speech
Perhaps he was given some phone numbers.
I think that integration leads inevitably to more integration to deal with the resultant crises.
What a monstrous stupid attitude. Parents have rights to see their children too. I understand more weight should be given to the child, but there needs to be some consideration given to the parents. How can the state take away someone's child based on a mistake and refuse to give it back?
If we have any lawyers present, I'd love to hear how I can help this poor couple right this terrible wrong. Would it be best to write to the council? Is there more that can be done to support their case?
A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/quisling
I think 'over-egging' a tad charitable......
The idea that Cameron might go into the 2020 election and then stand down after he's won is ludicrous.
The SNP remain clear favourites with the voters and this poll also shows one of the best every List votes for the SNP (51%).
I can just picture the local zoomers like ScottP maniacally bashing his keyboard and screaming "SNP BAAAAAAAD" to no avail.
Top Pros:
Reciprocal Free Movement across the EU
Access to shape the Common Market
Access to the Common Market
Top Cons:
Can't sign trade deals unilaterally
Laws that have little to do with Common Market being implemented by the EU (eg Working Time Directive etc)
CAP
For me the decider is Free Movement. I love the fact we have reciprocal Free Movement and I imagine it would be lost if we left so I want to Remain. If I was against it I'd be Out. I've actually put access to the common market as my third reason to stay, I have confidence but not certainty that we could negotiate a new trade deal to gain access if we left.
Of course if you spin back to the 1960s one argument the FO used to use for joining was precisely that we could use our membership - with the veto it then included - to stop the EC/EU from damaging our economic interests,
Once we were in of course they lost little time in telling us we had to give the veto up in order to maintain our 'influence'.
No doubt if HS2 were available he could have travelled in comfort.
The exception is where nations like Greece are on a lifeline and are told what to do or funding will be cut. That has sod all to do with the EU and is just blackmail. That doesn't apply to us unless Labour get in again and we have to go cap in hand to the IMF in which case we'll be told what to do whether we're in the EU or not.
Fine. Then put it back with its parents then.
What I do know is that the sorts of fatuous or dishonest arguments put forward by people like TSE or Flighpath deserve to be shot down so I content myself with that.
Period.
Seeking re-election and then immediately standing down would be preposterous. The only way he stands as Tory leader in 2020 is if he changes his mind and tells us thus.
However, revisiting the reports from the time, he did also make it clear that it would be "a full second term" and yesterday he talked of 10 years.
So I wonder if he does intend to serve as PM right up to the day after polling but with the Tories electing a new party leader (and therefore prospective PM) some time prior to May 2020 (say autumn 2019) to take over should they win a third term. I can see no reason why that couldn't happen. John Major was briefly PM but not Tory leader when he took on the b*stards. It has some advantages - the electorate know who they're getting and don't get someone foisted on them, but the obvious disadvantage that the new guy doesn't have any time to "prove himself".
But is that necessary anyway?
Thatcher and Cameron together understand that power gains influence. We are a powerful nation, a powerful market and a net contributor to the EU. Threatening to leave or cut funding if we don't get what we want leads other nations to begrudgingly give us what we want.
Blair made the naive mistake of believing that if you were everybodies mate it would gain us influence. He was truly a weak poodle and got taken advantage of. Poodle ought to apply more to how he was to Europe than how he was to Bush IMO.
We need to treat the EU as what it is, a foreign body full of foreign nations where we need to aggressively stand up for what we want if we are to get what we want. Not some cozy club.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
It's a recipe for disaster and compounds the initial scandalous error - no one is thinking about the child's feelings when that happens.
"a person who helps an enemy that has taken control of his or her country"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quisling
seems entirely apt to me.
Given the strength of the "guarantee" we got on a review of CAP if we gave some rebate back, nothing happened, and the assurance given that our money would not be used to bail out Greece, it was, the EU's word is meaningless.
I could easily see a move to harmonise further taxes in future - incl. corporation tax - following a Remain vote. It'd only take one Labour, or very wet/naive Tory government, to not notice and we're there.
But after three years, it is to be hoped that the baby is happily settled into its adoptive family. Removing him or her from that family to live with people who are, in effect, strangers, would probably be very traumatic for the child.
I think we can still win, but not if we do counterproductive things off the back of fatalistic assumptions.
Came as a surprise to me as the line out of european govts is that they have no clear idea what we are asking for. All a bit puzzling, frankly.
Firstly, the multi-national groups do generally have a sense of coherence and while the public might not identify with the group, they do identify with (or at least recognise) their local representatives of them.
But secondly, and more importantly, I think that the dynamics of a genuinely democratic EU - with an executive reliant on, and drawn from, the parliament - would create the dynamics necessary to make any democracy work. It would necessarily be a quite a pure representative democracy with few direct elements, more equivalent to the Commons in the eighteenth century than the twenty-first, but it would work all the same.