Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
Well, the Germans expect us to join the Euro eventually. We will be able to block that, but it means there's a lot of forced integration we can get because it's a QMV matter.
However, I'm expecting Cameron to have protections from QMV, so we should resolve it.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Seems that you're at least part right to me, and probably completely right. Such integration will certainly not be a vote winner here, so leaving is a real possibility in my view. I'd currently have the chances around 50/50. What's interesting is quite what a full steam ahead euro-integration might mean for an independent Britain. I don't particularly fear that scenario, but there's plenty to ponder.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
Dan "Ed is Crap" Hodges has got everything right in the last five years. The Telegraph should enhance its reputation by continuing to publish the advice of a man who has got everything right about the Labour leaders relationship with the electorate as a whole.
Had Ed won the General Election you might have anything resembling a point. You don't.
I thought Allegra Stratton made a startling point on Newsnight yesterday. Claims Crosby told the Tories after the election that although the they won the seats they didn't win the argument. Sturgeon and the SNP saw them home. It was clear to all and sundry that Miliband was a drag on Labour's ratings, hardly a startling insight from Hodges. Thanks to the rise of the SNP he got lucky.
And you think we're NOT a western liberal democracy because we have a constitutional monarchy?
Norway Sweden Denmark Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain.. ) western liberal democracies. Oh and the UK too of course.
And if their monarch has any constitutional role they are not democracies either. Constitutional Monarchy is an oxymoron. As I understand it, some of those countries no longer offer a constitutional role to the monarch and are no longer Constitutional Monarchies.
It's an utterly irrelevant point any way. Justifying the maintenance of a monarchy is a mental illness.
Salmond and Sturgeon are both monarchists, Eck passionately so. Are you suggesting that they are mentally ill ?
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Seems that you're at least part right to me, and probably completely right. Such integration will certainly not be a vote winner here, so leaving is a real possibility in my view. I'd currently have the chances around 50/50. What's interesting is quite what a full steam ahead euro-integration might mean for an independent Britain. I don't particularly fear that scenario, but there's plenty to ponder.
Euro-integration without rigorous protections for non-Euro members means that whatever the Eurozone decides in a QMV area will get voted through.
Hodges got the UKIP total wrong, but in the end, they did split. Those who might have voted Labour stuck with UKIP, the rest went back to not-voting or Tory.
But other than that? Seriously, the guy said "the polls now don't matter, Ed is a liability". The guy was abused, and mocked, and told he'd be wrong for months, if not years.
DONG "the exit poll is saying a Tory majority"
Cannot argue with that.
Incidentally the laughing stock article is wonderful.
"And it did. It transpired half his speech had been cadged from a freelance speech writer who’d touted the same words round every Labour leader since Neil Kinnock. Words that had been rejected each time. But still the best words of the whole, sorry rambling address. Then Jeremy Corbyn announced he’d never press the nuclear button. Then half the shadow cabinet lined up to say Jeremy Corbyn was wrong for saying he wouldn’t push the nuclear button. Then Jeremy Corbyn’s trousers fell down, John McDonnell drove onto the stage in a bright red car which promptly exploded and Diane Abbott started rushing around the hall, hitting a small bald man over the head with her truncheon."
A new parameter has emerged for the GOP nomination, the fact that the Republican party has a powerful party within the party now called Freedom Caucus with more than 40 congressmen , it's eating the GOP from the inside as we speak, it's gotten rid of Boehner and now McCarthy:
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
Well, the Germans expect us to join the Euro eventually. We will be able to block that, but it means there's a lot of forced integration we can get because it's a QMV matter.
However, I'm expecting Cameron to have protections from QMV, so we should resolve it.
I expect the sun to go supernova eventually, won't be right after the referendum though
I can't imagine the UK joining the Euro in my lifetime. I'm 33 and not planning an early death.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Seems that you're at least part right to me, and probably completely right. Such integration will certainly not be a vote winner here, so leaving is a real possibility in my view. I'd currently have the chances around 50/50. What's interesting is quite what a full steam ahead euro-integration might mean for an independent Britain. I don't particularly fear that scenario, but there's plenty to ponder.
Euro-integration without rigorous protections for non-Euro members means that whatever the Eurozone decides in a QMV area will get voted through.
I agree this is the biggest issue except that the eurozone don't decide each issue as a homogenous group, but on their own benefits. One reason that Germany wants us to stay is that in a lot of areas we provide balance for them against the Franco-Mediterranean nations.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Seems that you're at least part right to me, and probably completely right. Such integration will certainly not be a vote winner here, so leaving is a real possibility in my view. I'd currently have the chances around 50/50. What's interesting is quite what a full steam ahead euro-integration might mean for an independent Britain. I don't particularly fear that scenario, but there's plenty to ponder.
Euro-integration without rigorous protections for non-Euro members means that whatever the Eurozone decides in a QMV area will get voted through.
I agree this is the biggest issue except that the eurozone don't decide each issue as a homogenous group, but on their own benefits. One reason that Germany wants us to stay is that in a lot of areas we provide balance for them against the Franco-Mediterranean nations.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
In the EU what Merkel decides is law, by default of the power of the purse in the eurozone.
I agree this is the biggest issue except that the eurozone don't decide each issue as a homogenous group, but on their own benefits. One reason that Germany wants us to stay is that in a lot of areas we provide balance for them against the Franco-Mediterranean nations.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
That's not how it works in the EU however. There isn't a free and open vote in the council. The Eurozone has a natter among themselves, resolves their differences, agrees a common position and then votes as a bloc at the council. That's what happened with using EU-wide funds in the EFSF to bail out Greece. The Dutch and the Portuguese voted together with the Germans.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
Dan "Ed is Crap" Hodges has got everything right in the last five years. The Telegraph should enhance its reputation by continuing to publish the advice of a man who has got everything right about the Labour leaders relationship with the electorate as a whole.
Had Ed won the General Election you might have anything resembling a point. You don't.
I thought Allegra Stratton made a startling point on Newsnight yesterday. Claims Crosby told the Tories after the election that although the they won the seats they didn't win the argument. Sturgeon and the SNP saw them home. It was clear to all and sundry that Miliband was a drag on Labour's ratings, hardly a startling insight from Hodges. Thanks to the rise of the SNP he got lucky.
If you believe Allegra Stratton and if you do then if you believe Crosby and if you do then if you think there was no spin involved.
The overall vibe from the Tories is "don't get cocky, don't get complacent".
I agree this is the biggest issue except that the eurozone don't decide each issue as a homogenous group, but on their own benefits. One reason that Germany wants us to stay is that in a lot of areas we provide balance for them against the Franco-Mediterranean nations.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
That's not how it works in the EU however. There isn't a free and open vote in the council. The Eurozone has a natter among themselves, resolves their differences, agrees a common position and then votes as a bloc at the council. That's what happened with using EU-wide funds in the EFSF to bail out Greece. The Dutch and the Portuguese voted together with the Germans.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
And you think we're NOT a western liberal democracy because we have a constitutional monarchy?
Norway Sweden Denmark Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain.. ) western liberal democracies. Oh and the UK too of course.
And if their monarch has any constitutional role they are not democracies either. Constitutional Monarchy is an oxymoron. As I understand it, some of those countries no longer offer a constitutional role to the monarch and are no longer Constitutional Monarchies.
It's an utterly irrelevant point any way. Justifying the maintenance of a monarchy is a mental illness.
Salmond and Sturgeon are both monarchists, Eck passionately so. Are you suggesting that they are mentally ill ?
If they genuinely support monarchy they are. Of course neither support it. Playing the game does not denote acceptance of a broken deck.
You've seen the Franco-German clashes and lack of agreement over future governance of euro area (Macron-Schaueble), I assume. There's no euro area bloc vote.
I agree this is the biggest issue except that the eurozone don't decide each issue as a homogenous group, but on their own benefits. One reason that Germany wants us to stay is that in a lot of areas we provide balance for them against the Franco-Mediterranean nations.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
That's not how it works in the EU however. There isn't a free and open vote in the council. The Eurozone has a natter among themselves, resolves their differences, agrees a common position and then votes as a bloc at the council. That's what happened with using EU-wide funds in the EFSF to bail out Greece. The Dutch and the Portuguese voted together with the Germans.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
What Cameron might be pushing for is meaningless. There will still be ever closer union and even if the EU honours Cameron's pleadings once the referendum is over (which I doubt they will), that only works until a more pro EU government is returned - which it will be at some point - and whatever opt outs we think we have negotiated will simply evaporate.
Make no mistake. If we do not leave we will not be able to avoid closer union.
JEO according to your own Wikipedia link in 2008 (only year a breakdown is given) we were never on the losing side of a QMV vote. May have abstained but we never voted against a decision that was decided in the affirmative.
That's only one year and I suspect it isn't always representative (we lost the vote for Juncker for example) but I've not seen any example of us being serially outvoted by a EZ bloc vote.
You've seen the Franco-German clashes and lack of agreement over future governance of euro area (Macron-Schaueble), I assume. There's no euro area bloc vote.
Why don't you list a single occasion when France and Germany have voted against each other over the governance of the Euro areas?
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Seems that you're at least part right to me, and probably completely right. Such integration will certainly not be a vote winner here, so leaving is a real possibility in my view. I'd currently have the chances around 50/50. What's interesting is quite what a full steam ahead euro-integration might mean for an independent Britain. I don't particularly fear that scenario, but there's plenty to ponder.
Euro-integration without rigorous protections for non-Euro members means that whatever the Eurozone decides in a QMV area will get voted through.
If I was a Euro-integrationist (if that's a word) then I'd certainly not be stopping around to worry about the peripheral states in the dash to get things integrated and working as a whole. Moreover the state of French and Italian finances, plus the influx of refugees, all sort of contribute to the atmosphere where the full programme is the best sensible option (for the core states, I certainly don't think it is for us).
However things finish up its interesting to see the whole apparatus generally mess around trying to create something better. It's an incredibly inefficient process. I really can't make up my mind whether that's because bigger means more inefficient, or just because there's so much history in the way.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
That is factually untrue. We were not forced to pay. The EFSF was used yes but in accordance with our prior agreement the ECB took over our share of the EFSF. This is a matter of technicalities were the agreement is honoured. That is like me having a joint account with with someone else that we agree not to use for them alone but then because its the only one that can be used in an unforeseen emergency they offer to put extra money into the account to cover my share and then use it (so my share isn't affected) and I agree to that because I'm not wanting to be awkward.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
What Cameron might be pushing for is meaningless. There will still be ever closer union and even if the EU honours Cameron's pleadings once the referendum is over (which I doubt they will), that only works until a more pro EU government is returned - which it will be at some point - and whatever opt outs we think we have negotiated will simply evaporate.
Make no mistake. If we do not leave we will not be able to avoid closer union.
What the country is voting on is not meaningless. In the same way as if Out campaigns on migration and controlling the borders it precludes the EEA being an option, if Stay campaigns on no Ever Closer Union it precludes further integration being an option.
The Tories absolutely will not accept further integration without a referendum to endorse it and nor should anyone who supports further integration - the EU splits have been like a gangrenous wound on our politics for far too long and this referendum has been an attempt to heal them. Nobody sane should want to reopen those wounds.
I agree that a future pro EU government could take us further in but I don't think the country will elect a future pro EU government and if we do then we can deal with the consequences of how we've voted then.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
Unfair - he ended up getting a lot right, that is indisputable, and I was one laughing at him for his predictions. That doesn't mean I'm going to assume he is right now, but it should at least afford him protection from the charge of total idiocy.
I'm fairly sure most out-voters and most roughly sitters on the fence envisage and want a pretty much independent UK. I'm reasonably convinced that that's a long term and viable option, even in a world of super-bloc powers.
However, just supposing the choice was become part of the USA lets say alongside Canada at the same time, or become part of the UEU (or whatever - you get the idea). I wonder which way people would vote?
Perhaps the UK's future, if there have to be Blocs lies with say Canada, Japan, and Australia as some sort of independent trading coalition. I rather like that.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
That is factually untrue. We were not forced to pay. The EFSF was used yes but in accordance with our prior agreement the ECB took over our share of the EFSF. This is a matter of technicalities were the agreement is honoured. That is like me having a joint account with with someone else that we agree not to use for them alone but then because its the only one that can be used in an unforeseen emergency they offer to put extra money into the account to cover my share and then use it (so my share isn't affected) and I agree to that because I'm not wanting to be awkward.
That's simply not true. The EFSF bought Greek bonds as part of the bailout and these have not been bought by the ECB, and no money has been given by the ECB to the UK to make up for this.
It was also not an unforeseen emergency but something that had been negotiated for weeks in advance.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Semantics but I hate the phrase "two speed Europe". It implies that we're heading in the same direction but will get there later as we're travelling slower on the same road.
We want a "two roads Europe". One group heading down a road named ever closer union, one heading down a road marked nationally sovereign.
And you think we're NOT a western liberal democracy because we have a constitutional monarchy?
Norway Sweden Denmark Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain.. ) western liberal democracies. Oh and the UK too of course.
And if their monarch has any constitutional role they are not democracies either. Constitutional Monarchy is an oxymoron. As I understand it, some of those countries no longer offer a constitutional role to the monarch and are no longer Constitutional Monarchies.
It's an utterly irrelevant point any way. Justifying the maintenance of a monarchy is a mental illness.
Salmond and Sturgeon are both monarchists, Eck passionately so. Are you suggesting that they are mentally ill ?
If they genuinely support monarchy they are. Of course neither support it. Playing the game does not denote acceptance of a broken deck.
So you think Salmond and Sturgeon take the Scottish electorate as mugs. You can fool all of the people....... .
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
That is factually untrue. We were not forced to pay. The EFSF was used yes but in accordance with our prior agreement the ECB took over our share of the EFSF. This is a matter of technicalities were the agreement is honoured. That is like me having a joint account with with someone else that we agree not to use for them alone but then because its the only one that can be used in an unforeseen emergency they offer to put extra money into the account to cover my share and then use it (so my share isn't affected) and I agree to that because I'm not wanting to be awkward.
That's simply not true. The EFSF bought Greek bonds as part of the bailout and these have not been bought by the ECB, and no money has been given by the ECB to the UK to make up for this.
It was also not an unforeseen emergency but something that had been negotiated for weeks in advance.
Including with the UK. Did we vote against?
Please show me a transaction where we have handed over a single pound to the EFSF for Greece.
JEO according to your own Wikipedia link in 2008 (only year a breakdown is given) we were never on the losing side of a QMV vote. May have abstained but we never voted against a decision that was decided in the affirmative.
That's only one year and I suspect it isn't always representative (we lost the vote for Juncker for example) but I've not seen any example of us being serially outvoted by a EZ bloc vote.
Even ignoring the habit of British governments to oppose a measure and then to regretfully vote for it when it realises it has no chance, so as not to be seen as losing, that article is out of date.
"We found that the opposition to the appointment of Jean Claude Juncker as Commission President was no single event: in fact, the British government has voted against the common position in the EU Council much more frequently than any other Member: it has stayed in opposition in 85 out of 680 votes it participated in. Next in line, though far behind, are Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. Despite this, the policymaking in the EU has been able to work due to the extension of the qualified majority voting in Council votes, which prevents deadlocks when only one (or very few) countries oppose."
JEO according to your own Wikipedia link in 2008 (only year a breakdown is given) we were never on the losing side of a QMV vote. May have abstained but we never voted against a decision that was decided in the affirmative.
That's only one year and I suspect it isn't always representative (we lost the vote for Juncker for example) but I've not seen any example of us being serially outvoted by a EZ bloc vote.
Even ignoring the habit of British governments to oppose a measure and then to regretfully vote for it when it realises it has no chance, so as not to be seen as losing, that article is out of date.
Interesting article I'll read more on that but I suspect the current government is not doing that. It doesn't surprise me that slimy Blair and Brown would vote in favour to be seen not to lose, Cameron is not so dishonest and is quite content to lose a vote but vote how we want.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
That is factually untrue. We were not forced to pay. The EFSF was used yes but in accordance with our prior agreement the ECB took over our share of the EFSF. This is a matter of technicalities were the agreement is honoured. That is like me having a joint account with with someone else that we agree not to use for them alone but then because its the only one that can be used in an unforeseen emergency they offer to put extra money into the account to cover my share and then use it (so my share isn't affected) and I agree to that because I'm not wanting to be awkward.
That's simply not true. The EFSF bought Greek bonds as part of the bailout and these have not been bought by the ECB, and no money has been given by the ECB to the UK to make up for this.
It was also not an unforeseen emergency but something that had been negotiated for weeks in advance.
Including with the UK. Did we vote against?
Please show me a transaction where we have handed over a single pound to the EFSF for Greece.
It's not money handed over. It's money borrowed using UK funds as collateral.
The fundamental issue of the EU is that the interests of the Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries are likely to diverge over time. The Eurozone, if it is to survive, will do so by becoming more like a country, effectively following the same path the Swiss cantons did over the 250 years to 1900.
That puts non-Eurozone countries in a very difficult position. They have clearly gotten off the "ever close union" bus, and they clearly are not going to pool sovereignty over budgets and the like.
What I think we have done a very poor job is marshalling the various non-Eurozone countries into a coherent "no more closer union" block. There should be a natural UK-Denmark-Sweden alliance, that can act to safeguard the interests of the refuseniks. But that is another story.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
That was an EZ issue so was decided by the EZ as it should be. We were not exposed to it as we negotiated separately that we would be exempt from EZ bailouts and that was honoured.
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
It absolutely was not honoured. The agreement was that EFSF would not be used for further bailouts and they turned around and used it for another bailout. They voted as a bloc to force us to pay.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
That is factually untrue. We were not forced to pay. The EFSF was used yes but in accordance with our prior agreement the ECB took over our share of the EFSF. This is a matter of technicalities were the agreement is honoured. That is like me having a joint account with with someone else that we agree not to use for them alone but then because its the only one that can be used in an unforeseen emergency they offer to put extra money into the account to cover my share and then use it (so my share isn't affected) and I agree to that because I'm not wanting to be awkward.
That's simply not true. The EFSF bought Greek bonds as part of the bailout and these have not been bought by the ECB, and no money has been given by the ECB to the UK to make up for this.
It was also not an unforeseen emergency but something that had been negotiated for weeks in advance.
Including with the UK. Did we vote against?
Please show me a transaction where we have handed over a single pound to the EFSF for Greece.
It's not money handed over. It's money borrowed using UK funds as collateral.
No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Semantics but I hate the phrase "two speed Europe". It implies that we're heading in the same direction but will get there later as we're travelling slower on the same road.
We want a "two roads Europe". One group heading down a road named ever closer union, one heading down a road marked nationally sovereign.
Hah! Two roads sort of implies divergence though. "Two paths"? "Two routes"?
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
What Cameron might be pushing for is meaningless. There will still be ever closer union and even if the EU honours Cameron's pleadings once the referendum is over (which I doubt they will), that only works until a more pro EU government is returned - which it will be at some point - and whatever opt outs we think we have negotiated will simply evaporate.
Make no mistake. If we do not leave we will not be able to avoid closer union.
What the country is voting on is not meaningless. In the same way as if Out campaigns on migration and controlling the borders it precludes the EEA being an option, if Stay campaigns on no Ever Closer Union it precludes further integration being an option.
The Tories absolutely will not accept further integration without a referendum to endorse it and nor should anyone who supports further integration - the EU splits have been like a gangrenous wound on our politics for far too long and this referendum has been an attempt to heal them. Nobody sane should want to reopen those wounds.
I agree that a future pro EU government could take us further in but I don't think the country will elect a future pro EU government and if we do then we can deal with the consequences of how we've voted then.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
What Cameron might be pushing for is meaningless. There will still be ever closer union and even if the EU honours Cameron's pleadings once the referendum is over (which I doubt they will), that only works until a more pro EU government is returned - which it will be at some point - and whatever opt outs we think we have negotiated will simply evaporate.
Make no mistake. If we do not leave we will not be able to avoid closer union.
What the country is voting on is not meaningless. In the same way as if Out campaigns on migration and controlling the borders it precludes the EEA being an option, if Stay campaigns on no Ever Closer Union it precludes further integration being an option.
The Tories absolutely will not accept further integration without a referendum to endorse it and nor should anyone who supports further integration - the EU splits have been like a gangrenous wound on our politics for far too long and this referendum has been an attempt to heal them. Nobody sane should want to reopen those wounds.
I agree that a future pro EU government could take us further in but I don't think the country will elect a future pro EU government and if we do then we can deal with the consequences of how we've voted then.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
Perhaps it'll be a once in a generation vote. So only five years to wait going by Scottish generations.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
You've seen the Franco-German clashes and lack of agreement over future governance of euro area (Macron-Schaueble), I assume. There's no euro area bloc vote.
Why don't you list a single occasion when France and Germany have voted against each other over the governance of the Euro areas?
It's clear from the current dispute between Macron and Schaeuble, which I'm sure the Euro-experts here have been fully appraised about.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
That's Cameron's challenge though, and one that he has rather bravely set himself. Deliver a Europe that is attuned to British wishes, and moreover is bound by those wishes to some extent.
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
There is no comparison between the EEA/EU relationship and the EU/Eurozone relationship. For a start the most of the non-Eurozone members have a duty to eventually join the Euro. There is no requirement for EEA members ever to join the EU. More importantly the EU cannot outvote the EEA on anything.
You could add the UN to your venn diagrams but it would add nothing to your argument.
UKIP got 13% of the votes and won 1 seat. SNP won 5% of the votes and 56 MPs. LDs got 8% and 8 MPs.
FPTP is neither representative nor democratic !
Yet it remains the prevailing and supported electoral model in one of the bastions of Western liberal democracy.
Doesn't suit everybody, but it suits Britain just fine. And it offers:
- stability of government and constitution - direct constituency link between individual and the legislature - accountability (government and representatives)
All of which are most definitely something, and cherished by the majority of the people.
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
You are fooling only yourself by claiming anyone would look at the UK and think "hey, great example of democracy". It is almost certainly the worst example in all Western liberal democracies - so bad that it probably shouldn't be included in such a grouping.
Top trolling. Congratulations.
This is what he does day in day out.
Strangely, otherwise very bright people persist on feeding him.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
I love that chart. I particularly love the absurdity of countries in the Eurozone but not in the EU.
(Admittedly very, very small countries.)
I love that chart too.
It suits the dogmatic extremists on both sides (especially Blairites who wanted to portray the the EZ was inevitable) to suggest there can be only one outcome for Europe. It couldn't be further from the truth.
The UK is not doomed to any extreme solution without a choice. The UK is one of the EU's most powerful nation states, in the EU but out of the EZ is already a circle but there is no reason why a new ninth circle couldn't be added to that chart ... intersecting the other circles which contains just us like Switzerland's circle if we wanted it.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
That's Cameron's challenge though, and one that he has rather bravely set himself. Deliver a Europe that is attuned to British wishes, and moreover is bound by those wishes to some extent.
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
I would suggest that Cameron's challenge is actually to appear to have achieved that for long enough to win the referendum and then get out.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
A true two speed EU would be too risky for countries who are hoping to integrate and work towards ever closer union. If the countries with a looser relationship continue to prosper whilst those who have integrated further get left behind there is a risk that more countries will look for a looser relationship which will derail the prospect of ever closer union.
UKIP got 13% of the votes and won 1 seat. SNP won 5% of the votes and 56 MPs. LDs got 8% and 8 MPs.
FPTP is neither representative nor democratic !
Yet it remains the prevailing and supported electoral model in one of the bastions of Western liberal democracy.
Doesn't suit everybody, but it suits Britain just fine. And it offers:
- stability of government and constitution - direct constituency link between individual and the legislature - accountability (government and representatives)
All of which are most definitely something, and cherished by the majority of the people.
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
You are fooling only yourself by claiming anyone would look at the UK and think "hey, great example of democracy". It is almost certainly the worst example in all Western liberal democracies - so bad that it probably shouldn't be included in such a grouping.
The best recent example of democracy in action in a Western liberal democracy was the Scottish referendum.
I have just twigged why Dair is such a fan of the EU
Don't like the result of a referendum? Hold it again until you get the "right" result.
'In fact this EU Supranational Venn Diagram has not one, not two, not four but eight circles. It is not beyond the wit of possibility to have two'
If we opted just to be members of the EU customs union,then surely we would just get the trading bit without free movement and all the other assorted EU baggage ?
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
There is no comparison between the EEA/EU relationship and the EU/Eurozone relationship. For a start the most of the non-Eurozone members have a duty to eventually join the Euro. There is no requirement for EEA members ever to join the EU. More importantly the EU cannot outvote the EEA on anything.
You could add the UN to your venn diagrams but it would add nothing to your argument.
Most but not all EU but not EZ members have such a duty yes, they took that upon themselves. Any EU member that didn't want to join the EZ doesn't have to - and that now includes Sweden despite them not getting an opt-out in advance, they have effectively unilaterally given themselves an opt-out. So EZ membership is not inevtable.
As for outvoting, yes I have said all thread that is the biggest risk. A solution needs to be found ultimately to that, hopefully in this renegotiation (but I'm not optimistic) or in the next.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
A true two speed EU would be too risky for countries who are hoping to integrate and work towards ever closer union. If the countries with a looser relationship continue to prosper whilst those who have integrated further get left behind there is a risk that more countries will look for a looser relationship which will derail the prospect of ever closer union.
There is already an eight direction Europe and countries with a looser relationship (like Switzerland) are already being cited as an example by eurosceptics.
I think that is a great thing not a bad one. There should be a flexibility to discover what works best and anyone against that is a loon IMO.
''There are something like 500,000 expats living in France and Spain alone - many are very worried at the prospect of Brexit affecting their rights in the adoptive countries. ''
I suppose the time when people took the consequences for their own decisions is long gone.
They moved in most cases knowing that be I by in the EU secured their rights. A vote to leave could destroy that. Hence they are likely to vote remain. Your post makes no sense if you want to maximise the leave vote.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
I would have thought Russians or NATO "accidentally, brutally" shooting down each other's planes over Syria would be more serious?
The Russians managed to shoot down not one but two passenger jets - we managed to get over those events - and plenty of military incidents you will not generally get to hear about.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
A true two speed EU would be too risky for countries who are hoping to integrate and work towards ever closer union. If the countries with a looser relationship continue to prosper whilst those who have integrated further get left behind there is a risk that more countries will look for a looser relationship which will derail the prospect of ever closer union.
There is already an eight direction Europe and countries with a looser relationship (like Switzerland) are already being cited as an example by eurosceptics.
I think that is a great thing not a bad one. There should be a flexibility to discover what works best and anyone against that is a loon IMO.
I am sorry but you are not comparing like with like. There is simply no comparison between the relationship between the EU/Eurozone and the loose trade relationship between the EU and the other organisations. The EU as an institution cannot function as a multi-speed organisation. It would need to be completely dismantled and then started again from scratch to achieve such an aim.
''There are something like 500,000 expats living in France and Spain alone - many are very worried at the prospect of Brexit affecting their rights in the adoptive countries. ''
I suppose the time when people took the consequences for their own decisions is long gone.
They moved in most cases knowing that be I by in the EU secured their rights. A vote to leave could destroy that. Hence they are likely to vote remain. Your post makes no sense if you want to maximise the leave vote.
The post makes no sense full stop. Complaining about a Brit using their rights as they exist no more makes sense than a SNAT suggesting a Scot living in England not wanting to see union broken up is not taking consequences for their own decisions.
I have family who live in continental Europe using the rights they've acquired as part of the EU. As is their right.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
A true two speed EU would be too risky for countries who are hoping to integrate and work towards ever closer union. If the countries with a looser relationship continue to prosper whilst those who have integrated further get left behind there is a risk that more countries will look for a looser relationship which will derail the prospect of ever closer union.
There is already an eight direction Europe and countries with a looser relationship (like Switzerland) are already being cited as an example by eurosceptics.
I think that is a great thing not a bad one. There should be a flexibility to discover what works best and anyone against that is a loon IMO.
I am sorry but you are not comparing like with like. There is simply no comparison between the relationship between the EU/Eurozone and the loose trade relationship between the EU and the other organisations. The EU as an institution cannot function as a multi-speed organisation. It would need to be completely dismantled and then started again from scratch to achieve such an aim.
The EU has already split in two - EZ and non-EZ. It wasn't dismantled to do so. I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in our great nation to come up with a reasonable solution that works for us.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
I would have thought Russians or NATO "accidentally, brutally" shooting down each other's planes over Syria would be more serious?
The Russians managed to shoot down not one but two passenger jets - we managed to get over those events - and plenty of military incidents you will not generally get to hear about.
According to the US, four of the cruise missiles that Russia fired off yesterday landed on Iran, As they had to overfly Iran to hit their targets, perhaps best to guess on engine malfunction or guidance failure and consequent auto-destruct?
Before people start taking the p*ss out of the Russians for this, it would be interesting to know the failure rate of similar US cruise missiles. Although the US has had reason to fire off many more recently, so have had more experience to iron out the bugs ...
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
That's Cameron's challenge though, and one that he has rather bravely set himself. Deliver a Europe that is attuned to British wishes, and moreover is bound by those wishes to some extent.
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
I would suggest that Cameron's challenge is actually to appear to have achieved that for long enough to win the referendum and then get out.
That's very ambiguous - 'get out' means Cameron retiring, or the UK leaving?
I think Cameron is an 'achievement politican' where in fact he really wants to do something of worth. Blair too. Gordo was, in my view, a reputation politician - his only thoughts were his importance.
If Cameron cares about his achievements, and from the above I think he does then he'll be striving to find some good solution to all this.
Off-Topic (though I will bring it towards the issue of the UK/EU etc) - I'm looking forward to The Last Kingdom soon to be broadcast on BBC Two.
Finally a proper historical-based TV drama based on the formation of England / the era of Alfred the Great and the defence of Wessex from the Danes. Far too many people have the notion that English history began in 1066... frankly I'm amazed more aren't interested in how one of the world's greatest ever nation states was born.
It does of course relate to the question of national identity today - Englishness, Britishness, being "European" - not just on the matter of the UK's place in Europe, or the future of the British Union, but also of what to do wrt devolution in England/EVEL. England was unified into one kingdom - a hugely successful nation state - and I'll be damned to see it broken up or made into a province of some European empire.
I hope it does the period justice - a lot of great stories and ample opportunity for great TV if done right.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
That's Cameron's challenge though, and one that he has rather bravely set himself. Deliver a Europe that is attuned to British wishes, and moreover is bound by those wishes to some extent.
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
I would suggest that Cameron's challenge is actually to appear to have achieved that for long enough to win the referendum and then get out.
That's very ambiguous - 'get out' means Cameron retiring, or the UK leaving?
I think Cameron is an 'achievement politican' where in fact he really wants to do something of worth. Blair too. Gordo was, in my view, a reputation politician - his only thoughts were his importance.
If Cameron cares about his achievements, and from the above I think he does then he'll be striving to find some good solution to all this.
Sorry I should have been clearer. I meant get out as in Cameron retiring.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
A true two speed EU would be too risky for countries who are hoping to integrate and work towards ever closer union. If the countries with a looser relationship continue to prosper whilst those who have integrated further get left behind there is a risk that more countries will look for a looser relationship which will derail the prospect of ever closer union.
There is already an eight direction Europe and countries with a looser relationship (like Switzerland) are already being cited as an example by eurosceptics.
I think that is a great thing not a bad one. There should be a flexibility to discover what works best and anyone against that is a loon IMO.
I am sorry but you are not comparing like with like. There is simply no comparison between the relationship between the EU/Eurozone and the loose trade relationship between the EU and the other organisations. The EU as an institution cannot function as a multi-speed organisation. It would need to be completely dismantled and then started again from scratch to achieve such an aim.
The EU has already split in two - EZ and non-EZ. It wasn't dismantled to do so. I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in our great nation to come up with a reasonable solution that works for us.
It is nothing to do with our great nation. Whatever might be devised currently needs 28 other equally great nations each with its own agendas to agree. Some of them are fundamentally opposed to a two speed EU and every single one of them needs to ratify any new deal. And the whole point of this discussion is that the EU/Eurozone split is unstable and has to be changed or it will collapse. The EU cannot continue as it is with some countries outside and some in the Eurozone.
Richard Tyndall - do you think a "two speed Europe" can't be done or won't be done or both?
Both. The Eurozone countries don't want it. Even most of the countries outside the Eurozone don't want it. Nor will it work. The EU cannot survive with a two speed (or to use Phil's preferred name two roads) Europe.
Can you explain why not? The EEA which I believe you are OK with has survived with two roads (three if you include Switzerland) so why can the EZ not be a fourth?
I love that chart. I particularly love the absurdity of countries in the Eurozone but not in the EU.
(Admittedly very, very small countries.)
I love that chart too.
It suits the dogmatic extremists on both sides (especially Blairites who wanted to portray the the EZ was inevitable) to suggest there can be only one outcome for Europe. It couldn't be further from the truth.
The UK is not doomed to any extreme solution without a choice. The UK is one of the EU's most powerful nation states, in the EU but out of the EZ is already a circle but there is no reason why a new ninth circle couldn't be added to that chart ... intersecting the other circles which contains just us like Switzerland's circle if we wanted it.
Exactly right. But Cameron's big challenge is to convince the other member states to allow us a renegotiation where we have more opt-outs than the extremists at the Commission and European Parliament want us to have. I still have faith.
No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.
This is just simply not true though. Our case on the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the strongest there is. Economists and agricultural experts from left, right and centre decry it as terrible policy. We vote to reduce it every time. And yet it never gets reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.
It is meaningless because as soon as we vote 'In' the EU will ignore what we want and go back to what they want - which is ever closer union. What the UK wants at that point will mean nothing.
That's Cameron's challenge though, and one that he has rather bravely set himself. Deliver a Europe that is attuned to British wishes, and moreover is bound by those wishes to some extent.
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
I would suggest that Cameron's challenge is actually to appear to have achieved that for long enough to win the referendum and then get out.
That's very ambiguous - 'get out' means Cameron retiring, or the UK leaving?
I think Cameron is an 'achievement politican' where in fact he really wants to do something of worth. Blair too. Gordo was, in my view, a reputation politician - his only thoughts were his importance.
If Cameron cares about his achievements, and from the above I think he does then he'll be striving to find some good solution to all this.
Sorry I should have been clearer. I meant get out as in Cameron retiring.
Do you think he has a plan though? I certainly wouldn't want to be where he is, and I think the line is almost impossible to tread. But, he's good. Moreover he has time to consider these things. Labour's collapse has given him so much space he can really think about things.
Cameron finds himself in an astonishing place. I'm not unhappy that it's him.
'In fact this EU Supranational Venn Diagram has not one, not two, not four but eight circles. It is not beyond the wit of possibility to have two'
If we opted just to be members of the EU customs union,then surely we would just get the trading bit without free movement and all the other assorted EU baggage ?
The EU needs a gear box, but a proper one that allows members to go up and down a gear instead of just up when the economic engine is sputtering.
No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.
This is just simply not true though. Our case on the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the strongest there is. Economists and agricultural experts from left, right and centre decry it as terrible policy. We vote to reduce it every time. And yet it never gets reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.
With CAP the reason it will not get reformed is not because of any superstate nonsense (it long predates all that) but for the same reason any US Presidential candidate in favour of agricultural reform there will not get past the Iowa Primary. The farmers lobby are too powerful in too many nations. It is plain grubby national politics and fear of the farmers lobby that prevents CAP reform not ideological dreams of a superstate.
No it is not! It is money borrowed using the ECB fund as collateral for our share. This was covered at the time.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
Exactly. If Britain makes a good case, it will not lose votes. There is also the problem that many of the UK's negative votes are "virtue-signalling", while other countries with less historic need to viscerally appease Eurosceptics would have abstained or negotiated compromises instead of voting against things.
This is just simply not true though. Our case on the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the strongest there is. Economists and agricultural experts from left, right and centre decry it as terrible policy. We vote to reduce it every time. And yet it never gets reduced. The problem is that we address each issue as a "What is good policy?" question, while the rest of Europe tends to address each issue as a "What most moves towards a European superstate?" question.
With CAP the reason it will not get reformed is not because of any superstate nonsense (it long predates all that) but for the same reason any US Presidential candidate in favour of agricultural reform there will not get past the Iowa Primary. The farmers lobby are too powerful in too many nations. It is plain grubby national politics and fear of the farmers lobby that prevents CAP reform not ideological dreams of a superstate.
CAP reform will never be achieved as the EU is protectionist. New Zealand is a fantastic example of what can happen when farmers are weaned off of subsidies. It is truly exciting to think of the opportunities, innovation and increased productivity that could occur if UK farmers slowly lose their subsidies. It is things like this which make a future outside of the EU really attractive.
STARTLING REALISATION: unless Cameron invades Iraq (unlikely), or there is a terrible recession (possible, but, events, meh) he will go down as one of the best peacteime Tory PMs of the last century.
Comments
However, I'm expecting Cameron to have protections from QMV, so we should resolve it.
Those areas can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas
But other than that? Seriously, the guy said "the polls now don't matter, Ed is a liability". The guy was abused, and mocked, and told he'd be wrong for months, if not years.
DONG "the exit poll is saying a Tory majority"
Cannot argue with that.
Incidentally the laughing stock article is wonderful.
Come on. Chuckle?
A new parameter has emerged for the GOP nomination, the fact that the Republican party has a powerful party within the party now called Freedom Caucus with more than 40 congressmen , it's eating the GOP from the inside as we speak, it's gotten rid of Boehner and now McCarthy:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/mccarthy-withdraws-from-speaker-race-election-postponed-214560
Right now the Republican party is in chaos and ripe for a radical takeover.
I can't imagine the UK joining the Euro in my lifetime. I'm 33 and not planning an early death.
Were the Eurozone to turn into a single homogenous group with a QMV majority that could ignore everyone else then I agree that would be bad and at that point I'd probably say Out. But it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
The Dutch agree with us a lot more than they agree with the Greeks and they're both Euro nations.
The overall vibe from the Tories is "don't get cocky, don't get complacent".
On non-EZ issues the Dutch have sided with us.
Issues that can be considered "Eurozone" issues are now absolutely massive in terms of their danger to us. It is virtually the whole of economic policy. And even on non-EZ issues, it matters little when the Netherlands backs us when Germany, Italy, France and Spain all vote against us.
Make no mistake. If we do not leave we will not be able to avoid closer union.
That's only one year and I suspect it isn't always representative (we lost the vote for Juncker for example) but I've not seen any example of us being serially outvoted by a EZ bloc vote.
If I was a Euro-integrationist (if that's a word) then I'd certainly not be stopping around to worry about the peripheral states in the dash to get things integrated and working as a whole. Moreover the state of French and Italian finances, plus the influx of refugees, all sort of contribute to the atmosphere where the full programme is the best sensible option (for the core states, I certainly don't think it is for us).
However things finish up its interesting to see the whole apparatus generally mess around trying to create something better. It's an incredibly inefficient process. I really can't make up my mind whether that's because bigger means more inefficient, or just because there's so much history in the way.
The Tories absolutely will not accept further integration without a referendum to endorse it and nor should anyone who supports further integration - the EU splits have been like a gangrenous wound on our politics for far too long and this referendum has been an attempt to heal them. Nobody sane should want to reopen those wounds.
I agree that a future pro EU government could take us further in but I don't think the country will elect a future pro EU government and if we do then we can deal with the consequences of how we've voted then.
However, just supposing the choice was become part of the USA lets say alongside Canada at the same time, or become part of the UEU (or whatever - you get the idea). I wonder which way people would vote?
Perhaps the UK's future, if there have to be Blocs lies with say Canada, Japan, and Australia as some sort of independent trading coalition. I rather like that.
It was also not an unforeseen emergency but something that had been negotiated for weeks in advance.
We want a "two roads Europe". One group heading down a road named ever closer union, one heading down a road marked nationally sovereign.
.
Please show me a transaction where we have handed over a single pound to the EFSF for Greece.
"We found that the opposition to the appointment of Jean Claude Juncker as Commission President was no single event: in fact, the British government has voted against the common position in the EU Council much more frequently than any other Member: it has stayed in opposition in 85 out of 680 votes it participated in. Next in line, though far behind, are Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. Despite this, the policymaking in the EU has been able to work due to the extension of the qualified majority voting in Council votes, which prevents deadlocks when only one (or very few) countries oppose."
http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/the-british-government-minority-report-uk-opposes-most-frequently-in-eu-council-votes-especially-on-budget-agriculture-and-foreign-policy/#sthash.Lud4MUGm.dpuf
That puts non-Eurozone countries in a very difficult position. They have clearly gotten off the "ever close union" bus, and they clearly are not going to pool sovereignty over budgets and the like.
What I think we have done a very poor job is marshalling the various non-Eurozone countries into a coherent "no more closer union" block. There should be a natural UK-Denmark-Sweden alliance, that can act to safeguard the interests of the refuseniks. But that is another story.
Just finished reading your link on where we have lost votes and it appears to me reading that, that we have lost votes because we have lost votes not because the EZ was acting unanimously. It is well known that we want to serious reforms to CAP but that we do not have agreement for that so it is no surprise to see we've lost votes on that. We'd have lost those votes whether the EZ existed or not. On a number of votes (but not all) the Netherlands has also voted against.
QMV is an issue yes, but the EZ bloc vote is a danger not a fact.
And I thought we were liable for repayment in the event of a default. However, we don't seem to be listed as a guarantor which slightly surprises me.
In fact this EU Supranational Venn Diagram has not one, not two, not four but eight circles. It is not beyond the wit of possibility to have two:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png
(Admittedly very, very small countries.)
Cameron needs to deliver a choice where should we stay in the EU there will be frustration within Euro-federalist ranks. That's a very tough ask.
You could add the UN to your venn diagrams but it would add nothing to your argument.
Strangely, otherwise very bright people persist on feeding him.
It suits the dogmatic extremists on both sides (especially Blairites who wanted to portray the the EZ was inevitable) to suggest there can be only one outcome for Europe. It couldn't be further from the truth.
The UK is not doomed to any extreme solution without a choice. The UK is one of the EU's most powerful nation states, in the EU but out of the EZ is already a circle but there is no reason why a new ninth circle couldn't be added to that chart ... intersecting the other circles which contains just us like Switzerland's circle if we wanted it.
Don't like the result of a referendum? Hold it again until you get the "right" result.
'In fact this EU Supranational Venn Diagram has not one, not two, not four but eight circles. It is not beyond the wit of possibility to have two'
If we opted just to be members of the EU customs union,then surely we would just get the trading bit without free movement and all the other assorted EU baggage ?
As for outvoting, yes I have said all thread that is the biggest risk. A solution needs to be found ultimately to that, hopefully in this renegotiation (but I'm not optimistic) or in the next.
I think that is a great thing not a bad one. There should be a flexibility to discover what works best and anyone against that is a loon IMO.
I have family who live in continental Europe using the rights they've acquired as part of the EU. As is their right.
Before people start taking the p*ss out of the Russians for this, it would be interesting to know the failure rate of similar US cruise missiles. Although the US has had reason to fire off many more recently, so have had more experience to iron out the bugs ...
I think Cameron is an 'achievement politican' where in fact he really wants to do something of worth. Blair too. Gordo was, in my view, a reputation politician - his only thoughts were his importance.
If Cameron cares about his achievements, and from the above I think he does then he'll be striving to find some good solution to all this.
Cameron finds himself in an astonishing place. I'm not unhappy that it's him.