Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
Have there been any Scotland only (or broken down regionally) EU in/out polls?
We keep hearing about how a UK out vote would put an independence referendum back on the agenda, but is it right that Scots would vote to stay in? It was interesting how, for example, in the AV referendum the 2 to 1 outcome was similar across the country and I think near uniform in Scotland too.
I wonder how much different the Scots are on this to the UK as a whole?
I think they're significantly different but not wholly. I'd envisage a decisive but not overwhelming Scottish victory for 'in'. Not scientific, purely from living here. I don't think the Scottish people (if I can lump them all into one) like or trust the EU, but no-one's up here even making the case for leaving - and who've we got that will? David Coburn?
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
Putin must feel he's making progress in changing Western views of him. I'm not a fan myself (False Flag, who used to post here regularly from a pro-Putin/far-right viewpoint, seems to have given up) but I think Western attitudes towards Russia are genuinely confusing - I can't work out any consistent approach at all, and doubt if the Russians can either.
There is no consistent approach. The general drift of Western policy since Obama became president has been to wish that the world would be a bit nicer to each other and to gesturify in that direction without committing meaningful resources. That's produced all sorts of inconsistencies both within the policy itself and when it runs up against the harsh reality of the world as it is. A lot of the time, the response to such inconsistencies has been to either ignore them or to run away from them.
This is not a policy - to the extent that it can be dignified as such - that will command either respect or even understanding from those who take a more hard-headed approach, as Putin undoubtedly does. On the one hand, he knows that he can push Russia's interests hard, because there'll be no push back; on the other, it's very difficult for him to know where the whims of western intervention (which may just be rhetorical but which has an effect all the same), will strike next.
With regard to Russia directly, it's clear that the States and EU would like good relations but also feel compelled to respond to Putin's actions in Ukraine. They're not ready to realign policy to treat Russia as a strategic threat but are taking steps consistent with that conclusion all the same. What Putin can't work out - because Western leaders haven't yet worked it out - is the extent to which they're willing to follow the logic of those steps.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
From what I heard last night - from someone actually involved in the negotiations - I think you might be surprised. What is actually happening bears little relation to what the press are reporting.
You tease. I would love to believe you, but I am relying on past form which has not been encouraging.
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I would be astonished if Mandelson fronts anything. It's not his style. If it's not the PM - and if he is willing to recommend a deal then it's hard to avoid him not being front and centre in the campaign - then it would be better led by someone outside the political establishment.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
We don't know what's delivered yet.
And when we do, all Conservatives should consider it their duty to dig behind the spin and unearth the real facts and substance behind it before pronouncing judgement on the success, or failure, of the renegotiation.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
I'm not sure the reports we are getting can be seen as firm evidence. The vast majority of it on both sides is anecdotal and subject to spin.
I'll be making up my mind once the results of the renegotiation (if any) are finally released. I'll then have to try to read through all the spin either way, and make a decision. In partiuclar, I'll want to see what the other EU governments have firmly committed to, and what they are using weasel words for.
Having said that, it'll have to be a really impressive renegotiation to arrest me mid-fall and fling me over the other side of the fence. In my case the renegotiation should be called a trampoline.
Our infamous unbalanced BBC. Starts off on DP BBC2 with presenting the Leave campaigns as divided and forcing Robert Oxley (Vote Leave) to defend... then invites the "In" campaign's Lucy to attack the fact that the Leave campaigns are divided.....
Oh dear. The sooner the Farage/Banks UKIP only group called Leave.EU realise that they have no broad base and retire the better. Alas, we have two arrogant twa*s in Farage and Banks leading that mob. The question is how long will LEAVE.EU carry on?
Interesting that Hugo Rifkind confessed to being a europhile and said that it was the folk behind Vote Leave that worry him as they are better.
You tease. I would love to believe you, but I am relying on past form which has not been encouraging.
We'll have to wait and see. But I would strongly recommend taking Osborne's advice on ignoring anything you read in the press (especially if it comes from Brussels) regarding the progress of negotiations. They are taking place behind closed doors directly at PM and top minister level. The Eurocrats are not really involved; it's nothing to do with them, of course - their job is to implement whatever is agreed.
Britain Elects @britainelects 7m7 minutes ago Aird & Loch Ness (Highland) count moves to fourth stage: close fight between the Liberal Democrats and SNP. This is a SNP defence.
Not really. Where does the story go from here? Unless there's more to come out then the pressure will ease. After the scandals of non-investigation / -prosecution of recent years, it goes against the flow to attack him for being overly aggressive. I suspect he'll ride it out quite comfortably.
In low politics terms, it probably suits a lot of people having a damaged Watson in place.
What do you reckon to £21k a year (The NPV of their future cost is surely closer to £30k when you factor in pension/NI/pay rises etc) faith healers being hired on the NHS ?
I don;t see why, if he apologises. I read that pressure was brought to bear on the DPP, but the law took its course in the end.
Mr Watson was a central figure in Parliament spreading claims of an Establishment paedophile scandal, and played a key role in having a rape case against Lord Brittan reopened after it was closed because of a lack of evidence.
That's leaving aside Watson's other behaviour on this case and others.
I'd love to seem emails and contacts between Watson and Exaro News revealed ...
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
I'm not sure the reports we are getting can be seen as firm evidence. The vast majority of it on both sides is anecdotal and subject to spin.
I'll be making up my mind once the results of the renegotiation (if any) are finally released. I'll then have to try to read through all the spin either way, and make a decision. In partiuclar, I'll want to see what the other EU governments have firmly committed to, and what they are using weasel words for.
Having said that, it'll have to be a really impressive renegotiation to arrest me mid-fall and fling me over the other side of the fence. In my case the renegotiation should be called a trampoline.
I know exactly what you mean. But I'd want major concessions on justice, crime, human rights and free movement to convince me to stay. So far I've seen no signs of that. And we've opted into the EAW, making it worse.
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I want Farage to lose not because I dislike Farage but because I dislike what he stands for lately and what he is saying. His reason to vote out is a reason for me to vote in.
If Leave is fronted by the likes of Lawson, Hannan, Carswell and Hoey then I'd be more tempted to endorse that.
The leave campaign needs to appeal to at least 20 million voters. Farage won't do that but this campaign could.
Alternatively, a vote for In would endorse what Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Jean Claude Juncker, Martin Shultz, and Tom Watson stand for.
The only sensible way to decide is what is in the national interest.
Putin must feel he's making progress in changing Western views of him. I'm not a fan myself (False Flag, who used to post here regularly from a pro-Putin/far-right viewpoint, seems to have given up) but I think Western attitudes towards Russia are genuinely confusing - I can't work out any consistent approach at all, and doubt if the Russians can either.
On the contrary, there's a wholly consistent approach from both the US (there's really not much point in saying Western any more - it's the US and those who follow the US) and Russia.
Russia wants a buffer of Russia aligned states around its borders, and feels betrayed because assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO would move no further West have been broken. It doesn't want to lose a key strategic ally in the Middle East, and see the area fall under US/Israel/Saudi domination with Iran next for the chop - it would instead prefer a Russia friendly Shia arc including Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.
The US is attempting to preserve its pre-eminence as sole world superpower. It must do this before the economic chickens come home to roost, its debt becomes untenable, and the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency. Power always goes with wealth. It wants to topple Assad, then Iran, ensuring the dominance in the region of itself and its regional allies. It also has a longer term plan to encircle and break up its great power rivals China and Russia. Its main tool for acheiving all this is the bolstering of bordering hostile states, and sponsorship of unrest and uprisings (see Ukraine, see Syria, see Libya), with direct military intervention only where needed. All this is set out in publicly available green papers.
You tease. I would love to believe you, but I am relying on past form which has not been encouraging.
We'll have to wait and see. But I would strongly recommend taking Osborne's advice on ignoring anything you read in the press (especially if it comes from Brussels) regarding the progress of negotiations. They are taking place behind closed doors directly at PM and top minister level. The Eurocrats are not really involved; it's nothing to do with them, of course - their job is to implement whatever is agreed.
Trouble is: Osborne has form. He told us he halved the bill.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
I like doing my own research and not letting propaganda sway me but each to their own
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I want Farage to lose not because I dislike Farage but because I dislike what he stands for lately and what he is saying. His reason to vote out is a reason for me to vote in.
If Leave is fronted by the likes of Lawson, Hannan, Carswell and Hoey then I'd be more tempted to endorse that.
The leave campaign needs to appeal to at least 20 million voters. Farage won't do that but this campaign could.
Alternatively, a vote for In would endorse what Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Jean Claude Juncker, Martin Shultz, and Tom Watson stand for.
The only sensible way to decide is what is in the national interest.
No a Farage-fronted campaign only represents what Farage says. An end to free movement (and thus by definition no to the EEA too). Blair etc along with Cameron and others do not represent a single unified thing.
If Farage is a bit player under the Vote Leave campaign and the EEA is not ruled out then that is a substantial difference. This is a matter of policy and politics not just personality, isn't that clear?
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
I know right? And we are probably in the 1% of the most politically aware of the population. Who here doesn't know what the last 40 odd years under the EU have been?
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
We don't know what's delivered yet.
And when we do, all Conservatives should consider it their duty to dig behind the spin and unearth the real facts and substance behind it before pronouncing judgement on the success, or failure, of the renegotiation.
Rest assured I will do the same.
Agreed. All of all persuasions should - afterall a bad reform could make the EU even worse and more likely to vote out. It is not just one-way.
EG for me if Cameron negotiated an end to reciprocal free movement then many in the UK may see that as a great reform and would be more likely to vote to stay. I on the other hand would switch to leave as the EU comes with many costs and the benefit of being able to travel across the entire continent on one passport is the biggest benefit and if I need to apply for a visa to go to France then I don't want to be in the EU.
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I want Farage to lose not because I dislike Farage but because I dislike what he stands for lately and what he is saying. His reason to vote out is a reason for me to vote in.
If Leave is fronted by the likes of Lawson, Hannan, Carswell and Hoey then I'd be more tempted to endorse that.
The leave campaign needs to appeal to at least 20 million voters. Farage won't do that but this campaign could.
So many contradictions, I'll now assume you like what Mandy stands for.
20 million voters? You're now anticipating a turnout approaching 40m, interesting.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Farage and his principles are fronting Leave.EU in practice if not in name. You can deny it if you want but that is absurd. You can quibble over semantics if you want but the semantics are irrelevant.
Our infamous unbalanced BBC. Starts off on DP BBC2 with presenting the Leave campaigns as divided and forcing Robert Oxley (Vote Leave) to defend... then invites the "In" campaign's Lucy to attack the fact that the Leave campaigns are divided.....
Oh dear. The sooner the Farage/Banks UKIP only group called Leave.EU realise that they have no broad base and retire the better. Alas, we have two arrogant twa*s in Farage and Banks leading that mob. The question is how long will LEAVE.EU carry on?
Interesting that Hugo Rifkind confessed to being a europhile and said that it was the folk behind Vote Leave that worry him as they are better.
I didn;t follow the Scottish referendum that closely, did the mainstream media talk up splits between the various campaign groups?
I wouldn't be suprised if Leave.EU continue on to the end, it is not like they are short of money. It will be quite disappointing if the media are incapable of understanding that there will be more than one campaign group for leaving. Only yesterday did I read that TUSC will be setting up their own group.
I imagine the foreseeable future will consist of the media reporting splits in the In campaign and then allowing the Remain campaign to also attack them resulting in minimal discussion on the benefits of leaving being made.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Farage and his principles are fronting Leave.EU in practice if not in name. You can deny it if you want but that is absurd. You can quibble over semantics if you want but the semantics are irrelevant.
How can you front something in all but name? By appearing? What is it exactly that you want Farage to do for the duration of the referendum, go into solitary confinement? You have an unhealthy fixation.
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I want Farage to lose not because I dislike Farage but because I dislike what he stands for lately and what he is saying. His reason to vote out is a reason for me to vote in.
If Leave is fronted by the likes of Lawson, Hannan, Carswell and Hoey then I'd be more tempted to endorse that.
The leave campaign needs to appeal to at least 20 million voters. Farage won't do that but this campaign could.
So many contradictions, I'll now assume you like what Mandy stands for.
20 million voters? You're now anticipating a turnout approaching 40m, interesting.
If the stay campaign was dominated solely by Mandy (and his ilk) and the future being voted for the UK was the future that Mandy proposes then yes that would be relevant. That is why you need a cross-party, cross-interest, broad-based campaign where Mandy is one voice in a choir not dominant. Vote Leave is broad-based, Leave.EU is Farage-dominated. That is critical.
I didn't say you need to score 20 million votes, I said you need to appeal to 20 million. Not everyone you appeal to will vote Leave as both Leave and Stay will appeal to a significant chunk of the voters and each side will only win a portion of those they appeal to.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
UKIP is itself a Leave campaign, and Farage fronts it. Whatever arrangements are made for the two broad campaigns, Farage will be a very prominent voice in the debate and may well end up effectively fronting it depending on how loud he ends up being and how well the nominal Out leaders are doing.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
We don't know what's delivered yet.
And when we do, all Conservatives should consider it their duty to dig behind the spin and unearth the real facts and substance behind it before pronouncing judgement on the success, or failure, of the renegotiation.
Rest assured I will do the same.
Agreed. All of all persuasions should - afterall a bad reform could make the EU even worse and more likely to vote out. It is not just one-way.
EG for me if Cameron negotiated an end to reciprocal free movement then many in the UK may see that as a great reform and would be more likely to vote to stay. I on the other hand would switch to leave as the EU comes with many costs and the benefit of being able to travel across the entire continent on one passport is the biggest benefit and if I need to apply for a visa to go to France then I don't want to be in the EU.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Farage and his principles are fronting Leave.EU in practice if not in name. You can deny it if you want but that is absurd. You can quibble over semantics if you want but the semantics are irrelevant.
How can you front something in all but name? By appearing? What is it exactly that you want Farage to do for the duration of the referendum, go into solitary confinement? You have an unhealthy fixation.
I would want him to work well with sceptics of all parties like Portillo, Lawson, Hoey, Field and others let alone sceptics of his own party like Carswell. I would want him not to rule out the EEA.
Britain Elects @britainelects 4m4 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 44% (-1) Leave: 39% (+1) (via ICM / 07 Oct)
Interesting - not as big a gap as Com Res but remain does have a clearish lead.
That requires a 2.5 point swing when there is 7 points undecided. That is not a big lead.
Excluding Don't knows it's 53/47%, which is in the same ballpark as Yougov and Survation showing leads of 51-52/48-49% for Leave.
Even the Com Res poll shows a shift to Leave from the Spring, when it was 58-31%.
The danger for those who want Leave is that the undecided in any referendum generally break for the status quo. IMO the polls if they're balanced right by age etc need to show a clear Leave lead excluding don't knows for leave to be confident.
The STAY campaign is being fronted by Mandelson which creates an interesting dichotomy for the tories that would vote IN rather than see Farage's victorious grin. The morning after the referendum they'll be faced with one of Mandy or Nigel gurning, I'll say that's a lose/lose for the tory sheep who vote along party lines regardless.
I want Farage to lose not because I dislike Farage but because I dislike what he stands for lately and what he is saying. His reason to vote out is a reason for me to vote in.
If Leave is fronted by the likes of Lawson, Hannan, Carswell and Hoey then I'd be more tempted to endorse that.
The leave campaign needs to appeal to at least 20 million voters. Farage won't do that but this campaign could.
Alternatively, a vote for In would endorse what Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Jean Claude Juncker, Martin Shultz, and Tom Watson stand for.
The only sensible way to decide is what is in the national interest.
No a Farage-fronted campaign only represents what Farage says. An end to free movement (and thus by definition no to the EEA too). Blair etc along with Cameron and others do not represent a single unified thing.
If Farage is a bit player under the Vote Leave campaign and the EEA is not ruled out then that is a substantial difference. This is a matter of policy and politics not just personality, isn't that clear?
Its you that's making it into a personality contest
Thanks for your kind words on kids. On the bright side I have enjoyed mentoring in the past and with my teenage nephews, so perhaps all is not lost.
Perhaps alcohol will help, as will many calls to our own ageing parents for advice and support!
If you can intergrate your parents help, do. Do look at the age of your wife and realise that your chances go down with each year - sorry to be so blunt. If it is just about affordable now then go for it.
You tease. I would love to believe you, but I am relying on past form which has not been encouraging.
We'll have to wait and see. But I would strongly recommend taking Osborne's advice on ignoring anything you read in the press (especially if it comes from Brussels) regarding the progress of negotiations. They are taking place behind closed doors directly at PM and top minister level. The Eurocrats are not really involved; it's nothing to do with them, of course - their job is to implement whatever is agreed.
I agree. The situation I would suggest is different now compared to what it was 12 months ago. It will probably change again. Already there is talk of treaty changes being necessary by people who were suggesting it would be impossible 12 months ago. We need to wait. I'm not going to guess what will happen in another 12 months time. Just how will the closer union of the eurozone develop?
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
We don't know what's delivered yet.
And when we do, all Conservatives should consider it their duty to dig behind the spin and unearth the real facts and substance behind it before pronouncing judgement on the success, or failure, of the renegotiation.
Rest assured I will do the same.
Agreed. All of all persuasions should - afterall a bad reform could make the EU even worse and more likely to vote out. It is not just one-way.
EG for me if Cameron negotiated an end to reciprocal free movement then many in the UK may see that as a great reform and would be more likely to vote to stay. I on the other hand would switch to leave as the EU comes with many costs and the benefit of being able to travel across the entire continent on one passport is the biggest benefit and if I need to apply for a visa to go to France then I don't want to be in the EU.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
Thanks for the link to Vote Leave. I've signed up, and forwarded it on.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
If he does have to go (and I agree that he should, the hypocritical bag of shite) then the race for the new deputy will become a much-earlier-than-expected fight for the pole position for leader when Corbyn inevitably has to go.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Farage and his principles are fronting Leave.EU in practice if not in name. You can deny it if you want but that is absurd. You can quibble over semantics if you want but the semantics are irrelevant.
How can you front something in all but name? By appearing? What is it exactly that you want Farage to do for the duration of the referendum, go into solitary confinement? You have an unhealthy fixation.
I would want him to work well with sceptics of all parties like Portillo, Lawson, Hoey, Field and others let alone sceptics of his own party like Carswell. I would want him not to rule out the EEA.
He couldn't rule out anything even if he wanted to. There is a panoply of options as to how an EU-free UK would look, but there is also a panoply of options as to how an EU member UK will look. Will we have to join the euro? Will there even be a euro? Will we have our own army? Will tax policy be harmonised? Will health policy be harmonised? Will Europe do TTIP or not and what will the impact be? There is no real security within the EU, merely imagined security. The only difference between the two is that in the first instance Britain will decide, and in the second, matters will be decided with little British participation.
As a Spurs fan I can always tell when we're doing well, Arsenal fans start slagging us off through worry. I'm very much enjoying the Cameronites on here start to fret about the EU, golden boy has had his 6 months honeymoon, now lets see what he's made of.
Thanks for your kind words on kids. On the bright side I have enjoyed mentoring in the past and with my teenage nephews, so perhaps all is not lost.
Perhaps alcohol will help, as will many calls to our own ageing parents for advice and support!
If you can intergrate your parents help, do. Do look at the age of your wife and realise that your chances go down with each year - sorry to be so blunt. If it is just about affordable now then go for it.
That's where we're at. To be honest, I'm raging at the dying of the (freedom to be irresponsible) light a little bit.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Let's have some common sense here.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
UKIP is itself a Leave campaign, and Farage fronts it. Whatever arrangements are made for the two broad campaigns, Farage will be a very prominent voice in the debate and may well end up effectively fronting it depending on how loud he ends up being and how well the nominal Out leaders are doing.
Well in that case people like Phillip Thompson won't be able to vote to leave while Farage is UKIP leader... so be it.
I find it amazing that grown up people are honestly saying they want to vote leave for xyz reasons, but won't because the leader of the smallest party in the House of Commons wants to leave for different reasons
I don't like racism or the BNP, but after studying politics at uni I came to the conclusion that mass immigration is the major cause of our problems... I am confident enough in my own belief not to worry about them. I'm not going to stop supporting arsenal because if Piers Morgan either
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
Farage and his principles are fronting Leave.EU in practice if not in name. You can deny it if you want but that is absurd. You can quibble over semantics if you want but the semantics are irrelevant.
How can you front something in all but name? By appearing? What is it exactly that you want Farage to do for the duration of the referendum, go into solitary confinement? You have an unhealthy fixation.
I would want him to work well with sceptics of all parties like Portillo, Lawson, Hoey, Field and others let alone sceptics of his own party like Carswell. I would want him not to rule out the EEA.
He couldn't rule out anything even if he wanted to. There is a panoply of options as to how an EU-free UK would look, but there is also a panoply of options as to how an EU member UK will look. Will we have to join the euro? Will there even be a euro? Will we have our own army? Will tax policy be harmonised? Will health policy be harmonised? Will Europe do TTIP or not and what will the impact be? There is no real security within the EU, merely imagined security. The only difference between the two is that in the first instance Britain will decide, and in the second, matters will be decided with little British participation.
If the dominant case to leave the EU is to end freedom of movement and that argument wins then that rules out the EEA by definition.
There is a panoply I agree with is why we should approach it as such. Leave.EU is not doing that, Leave.EU is saying that voting to leave ends freedom of movement which I cherish.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
And that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. My position, and I think a lot of other people's, is that uncontrolled immigration from the EU, and from the Middle East via the EU, more than overcomes that benefit.
What would be the ideal situation is if we got some sort of cap in the renegotiation. If EU immigration could be capped at 100k for any nation in the EU, then that means most of the benefits of free movement could be retained, but the countries being overwhelmed by incomers could manage the pace a bit better.
If he does have to go (and I agree that he should, the hypocritical bag of shite) then the race for the new deputy will become a much-earlier-than-expected fight for the pole position for leader when Corbyn inevitably has to go.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Let's have some common sense here.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
This wall that's being built around our coast - when does work commence?
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
UKIP is itself a Leave campaign, and Farage fronts it. Whatever arrangements are made for the two broad campaigns, Farage will be a very prominent voice in the debate and may well end up effectively fronting it depending on how loud he ends up being and how well the nominal Out leaders are doing.
Well in that case people like Phillip Thompson won't be able to vote to leave while Farage is UKIP leader... so be it.
I find it amazing that grown up people are honestly saying they want to vote leave for xyz reasons, but won't because the leader of the smallest party in the House of Commons wants to leave for different reasons
I don't like racism or the BNP, but after studying politics at uni I came to the conclusion that mass immigration is the major cause of our problems... I am confident enough in my own belief not to worry about them. I'm not going to stop supporting arsenal because if Piers Morgan either
I am sick of repeating myself and banging my head against a brick wall so lets try one last time using some logic and see if you comprehend.
IF the dominant argument to leave the EU is to end freedom of movement AND that argument wins the day THEN that logically entails the UK choosing to end freedom of movement and thus rules out the EEA.
IF the argument is broad-based with a variety of future options THEN we can determine our future with nothing ruled out.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
It's not who fronts the campaign that matters but what the campaign stands for - who fronts is just a function of that.
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
It becoming hard to keep patience with you but I will try.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
UKIP is itself a Leave campaign, and Farage fronts it. Whatever arrangements are made for the two broad campaigns, Farage will be a very prominent voice in the debate and may well end up effectively fronting it depending on how loud he ends up being and how well the nominal Out leaders are doing.
Well in that case people like Phillip Thompson won't be able to vote to leave while Farage is UKIP leader... so be it.
I find it amazing that grown up people are honestly saying they want to vote leave for xyz reasons, but won't because the leader of the smallest party in the House of Commons wants to leave for different reasons
I don't like racism or the BNP, but after studying politics at uni I came to the conclusion that mass immigration is the major cause of our problems... I am confident enough in my own belief not to worry about them. I'm not going to stop supporting arsenal because if Piers Morgan either
I am sick of repeating myself and banging my head against a brick wall so lets try one last time using some logic and see if you comprehend.
IF the dominant argument to leave the EU is to end freedom of movement AND that argument wins the day THEN that logically entails the UK choosing to end freedom of movement and thus rules out the EEA.
IF the argument is broad-based with a variety of future options THEN we can determine our future with nothing ruled out.
The two scenarios are different.
Ending freedom of movement per se would be silly, I don't hear anybody, least of all Farage arguing for it. But immigration policy as it stands is unsustainable using any measure, its why Cameron talks of a desire to cut immigration numbers.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Let's have some common sense here.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
Fair enough, but I don't see why other nations should be obliged to have an open-door policy for your convenience, just in case you change your mind in future.
It isn't just about you, or me for that matter. Existing nations and their citizens should have a say too.
Amazing how many people on here can't make their own minds up and have to rely on who fronts what campaign
Speaking as someone who is falling off the fence, but not yet hit the ground, you've got it wrong, in my case at least.
I haven't made my mind up as, for me, the arguments either way are not mature and are thoroughly unpractised. We have a year or more before the referendum, and Cameron hasn't even got his renegotiation through yet.
Most of the population are probably instinctively either for stay or leave; they haven't really been listening to the arguments (not that there's been much light yet), and are open to persuasion either way. Hence the leaders of the various campaigns will play a vital role.
In fact, I'd say it's amazing how many people on here have made their minds up, and for whom no evidence or campaigning will change their views.
But the evidence we do have is of Cameron and Osborne talking tough on the EU, and then delivering very little whilst proclaiming it as a success.
We don't know what's delivered yet.
And when we do, all Conservatives should consider it their duty to dig behind the spin and unearth the real facts and substance behind it before pronouncing judgement on the success, or failure, of the renegotiation.
Rest assured I will do the same.
Agreed. All of all persuasions should - afterall a bad reform could make the EU even worse and more likely to vote out. It is not just one-way.
EG for me if Cameron negotiated an end to reciprocal free movement then many in the UK may see that as a great reform and would be more likely to vote to stay. I on the other hand would switch to leave as the EU comes with many costs and the benefit of being able to travel across the entire continent on one passport is the biggest benefit and if I need to apply for a visa to go to France then I don't want to be in the EU.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
Thanks for the link to Vote Leave. I've signed up, and forwarded it on.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
This wall that's being built around our coast - when does work commence?
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
It takes potentially years for the bureaucrats to process the paperwork to issue a visa, while retirement is harder still.
Between my wife and I we have relatives in France, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Australia. If we wanted to we could turn up at Manchester Airport tomorrow and no questions asked board a plane to France and Spain, stay with our relatives, find a new job and start life over there.
We could apply for a visa to South Africa, Canada and Australia and potentially a couple of years later we could get a visa.
I would rather get a new reciprocal movement agreement with other nations similar to ours like Canada, Australia, NZ and USA rather than abolish it with Europe.
I think it is a very legitimate view that the ability to work anywhere in the EU indefinitely is more important than controlling immigration. It is, however, a minority view and virtually anyone that holds it is not going to vote Leave, so the Leave campaign shouldn't try to accommodate it. In the same way, the Remain campaign should not bother trying to attract people who think the EU is the reincarnation of the USSR. Those voters are already lost to them.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
And that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. My position, and I think a lot of other people's, is that uncontrolled immigration from the EU, and from the Middle East via the EU, more than overcomes that benefit.
What would be the ideal situation is if we got some sort of cap in the renegotiation. If EU immigration could be capped at 100k for any nation in the EU, then that means most of the benefits of free movement could be retained, but the countries being overwhelmed by incomers could manage the pace a bit better.
That's exactly what I thought Cameron was going for in the first place. It's basic practical common sense - free movement within *reasonable* limits.
If he'd got it, even I might have been tempted by Remain*
*With all the rest of his objectives achieved as well
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Let's have some common sense here.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
Fair enough, but I don't see why other nations should be obliged to have an open-door policy for your convenience, just in case you change your mind in future.
It isn't just about you, or me for that matter. Existing nations and their citizens should have a say too.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
If he does have to go (and I agree that he should, the hypocritical bag of shite) then the race for the new deputy will become a much-earlier-than-expected fight for the pole position for leader when Corbyn inevitably has to go.
And it will have to be a woman.
Would agree with that. But which? Is Yvette Cooper going to be any more appealling served up cold on different china? Would people reconsider Kendall as a bookend to Corbyn's politics on the left? Can't see it. Likely to be (though it pains me to say it) Caroline Flint - unless the Corbynistas insist on a female of equally rabid politics to Jeremy.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
This wall that's being built around our coast - when does work commence?
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
It takes potentially years for the bureaucrats to process the paperwork to issue a visa, while retirement is harder still.
Between my wife and I we have relatives in France, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Australia. If we wanted to we could turn up at Manchester Airport tomorrow and no questions asked board a plane to France and Spain, stay with our relatives, find a new job and start life over there.
We could apply for a visa to South Africa, Canada and Australia and potentially a couple of years later we could get a visa.
I would rather get a new reciprocal movement agreement with other nations similar to ours like Canada, Australia, NZ and USA rather than abolish it with Europe.
Me too, but the party you vote for isn't interested in that. And you now want to remain in an institution that would make that scenario ever more unlikely.
Lets face it, you've painted yourself into a Farage corner.
The BBC up to their old tricks, obsessing over the Leave campaign groups and then for good measure interviewing a Europhile businessman who made some bizarre claims such as the EU keeps us safe.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
Fair enough, but I don't see why other nations should be obliged to have an open-door policy for your convenience, just in case you change your mind in future.
It isn't just about you, or me for that matter. Existing nations and their citizens should have a say too.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
Err.. it's a different country (did you really just say that?)
If you can't see the distinction between a foreign and domestic move, then I really can't help you.
I recognise that there are some on the centre-right who cherish an absolute freedom of movement right anywhere in the world, and view nations, cultures and geographies as irrelevant - Robert Smithson is another. In an ideal world, why not? It sounds nice, doesn't it? Anyone can choose where they want to live anywhere in the world.
Unfortunately, in the real world, there are downsides to it too and competing interests and issues that must be balanced. There are many precious things lost with such a right. Which is why, and where, pragmatism and common sense come in, not black and white ideology, and that should be the modus operandi of any true conservative.
The BBC up to their old tricks, obsessing over the Leave campaign groups and then for good measure interviewing a Europhile businessman who made some bizarre claims such as the EU keeps us safe.
This inevitably happens. The economic argument is lost, as is the migration one, the last resort is always:
And that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. My position, and I think a lot of other people's, is that uncontrolled immigration from the EU, and from the Middle East via the EU, more than overcomes that benefit.
What would be the ideal situation is if we got some sort of cap in the renegotiation. If EU immigration could be capped at 100k for any nation in the EU, then that means most of the benefits of free movement could be retained, but the countries being overwhelmed by incomers could manage the pace a bit better.
It is interesting that you mention the Middle East, I think a lot of voters are more bothered by Middle Eastern migration than European migration and of course the Middle East is not part of the EU. AFAIK the vast majority of Middle Eastern migration to the UK comes directly here not indirectly via the EU.
As I've said I would love to see free movement expanded in a reciprocal manner to the USA, Canada, Australia and NZ. Which would roughly double the number of people who have free movement with us but probably not be so unpopular with the country. I would not expand it to the Middle East.
The Vote Leave website is very interesting. As one would expect from the people behind it, it's well done and the argument well-presented, although perhaps rather over-abstract?
Most interesting of all is that as far as I can see it makes no mention of immigration or freedom of movement. If there is any mention it's certainly not prominent. That's presumably because they are smart enough to realise that leaving the EU is very unlikely to change anything on that front.
You would never need a visa to visit France: you know this. All Western countries don't require it from each other.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
90 days? That's not very much. I have family who live in France and Spain I don't think they intend to be there for 90 days. An Australian who wants to live, work or retire or stay long-term in France requires a visa.
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
There would be dispensations for existing residents in France and Spain, particuarly property owners there who would almost certainly have permanent residence. In future, each country could take a view on purchase of property - i suspect many would be happy for British citizens to continue to buy property, live there and contribute to the economy.
Let's have some common sense here.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
Fair enough, but I don't see why other nations should be obliged to have an open-door policy for your convenience, just in case you change your mind in future.
It isn't just about you, or me for that matter. Existing nations and their citizens should have a say too.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
I really can't believe you said that. Welcome to Philip's world of no borders.
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
This wall that's being built around our coast - when does work commence?
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
It takes potentially years for the bureaucrats to process the paperwork to issue a visa, while retirement is harder still.
Between my wife and I we have relatives in France, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Australia. If we wanted to we could turn up at Manchester Airport tomorrow and no questions asked board a plane to France and Spain, stay with our relatives, find a new job and start life over there.
We could apply for a visa to South Africa, Canada and Australia and potentially a couple of years later we could get a visa.
I would rather get a new reciprocal movement agreement with other nations similar to ours like Canada, Australia, NZ and USA rather than abolish it with Europe.
Me too, but the party you vote for isn't interested in that. And you now want to remain in an institution that would make that scenario ever more unlikely.
Lets face it, you've painted yourself into a Farage corner.
I want to remain in an institution which won't abolish the existing rights. I don't know any party proposing expanding new reciprocal agreements (or other nations open to it).
Dispensations doesn't help those who want to keep the option open in the future. I may want to move to France or other nations in the future, I don't now but I can't rule it out. You can argue all you want that what you see is a flaw is one, but others see it as a benefit. That is why we created the freedom to move and some of us still value it. As did my classmates.
This wall that's being built around our coast - when does work commence?
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
It takes potentially years for the bureaucrats to process the paperwork to issue a visa, while retirement is harder still.
Between my wife and I we have relatives in France, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Australia. If we wanted to we could turn up at Manchester Airport tomorrow and no questions asked board a plane to France and Spain, stay with our relatives, find a new job and start life over there.
We could apply for a visa to South Africa, Canada and Australia and potentially a couple of years later we could get a visa.
I would rather get a new reciprocal movement agreement with other nations similar to ours like Canada, Australia, NZ and USA rather than abolish it with Europe.
Unfortunately it was joining the EEC which helped bring an end to the sorts of agreements you are talking about with Non-EU countries.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
I really can't believe you said that. Welcome to Philip's world of no borders.
No borders between certain nations yes. And its not a new world it is what we have built already.
EDIT: Though we still have border control through Schengen which makes sense as the right extends to French people in a reciprocal manner not anyone who has found their way into France.
The Vote Leave website is very interesting. As one would expect from the people behind it, it's well done and the argument well-presented, although perhaps rather over-abstract?
Most interesting of all is that as far as I can see it makes no mention of immigration or freedom of movement. If there is any mention it's certainly not prominent. That's presumably because they are smart enough to realise that leaving the EU is very unlikely to change anything on that front.
I think it's because they want to strike a different tone from Farage - I think they are correct to do so.
I don't believe for a second that immigration would be unlikely to change if we left the EU - the exit negotiations for future arrangements would ensure that it did.
And that's a perfectly legitimate position to have. My position, and I think a lot of other people's, is that uncontrolled immigration from the EU, and from the Middle East via the EU, more than overcomes that benefit.
What would be the ideal situation is if we got some sort of cap in the renegotiation. If EU immigration could be capped at 100k for any nation in the EU, then that means most of the benefits of free movement could be retained, but the countries being overwhelmed by incomers could manage the pace a bit better.
It is interesting that you mention the Middle East, I think a lot of voters are more bothered by Middle Eastern migration than European migration and of course the Middle East is not part of the EU. AFAIK the vast majority of Middle Eastern migration to the UK comes directly here not indirectly via the EU.
As I've said I would love to see free movement expanded in a reciprocal manner to the USA, Canada, Australia and NZ. Which would roughly double the number of people who have free movement with us but probably not be so unpopular with the country. I would not expand it to the Middle East.
To be fair, I think that was JEO who posted that.
In future, there could be plenty of Middle Eastern migration that comes to the UK indirectly via the EU.
I don't believe for a second that immigration would be unlikely to change if we left the EU - the exit negotiations for future arrangements would ensure that it did.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think it would make an iota of difference in any even vaguely plausible scenario.
If he does have to go (and I agree that he should, the hypocritical bag of shite) then the race for the new deputy will become a much-earlier-than-expected fight for the pole position for leader when Corbyn inevitably has to go.
And it will have to be a woman.
Would agree with that. But which? Is Yvette Cooper going to be any more appealling served up cold on different china? Would people reconsider Kendall as a bookend to Corbyn's politics on the left? Can't see it. Likely to be (though it pains me to say it) Caroline Flint - unless the Corbynistas insist on a female of equally rabid politics to Jeremy.
I don't think it *has* to be a woman. But it will strain the Labour movement quite heavily if it is not.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
I really can't believe you said that. Welcome to Philip's world of no borders.
No borders between certain nations yes. And its not a new world it is what we have built already.
EDIT: Though we still have border control through Schengen which makes sense as the right extends to French people in a reciprocal manner not anyone who has found their way into France.
These "certain nations" - how would you discriminate?
I don't believe for a second that immigration would be unlikely to change if we left the EU - the exit negotiations for future arrangements would ensure that it did.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think it would make an iota of difference in any even vaguely plausible scenario.
I think that's insane. I take your point on EEA/EFTA currently having free movement, but the UK leaving is a huge deal and I think we'd be able to tweak the status quo of those with a dispensation for us in the negotiation so we could apply limits to FoM.
After all, that's exactly what Cameron was trying to do from *inside* the EU barely a year ago.
As a Spurs fan I can always tell when we're doing well, Arsenal fans start slagging us off through worry. I'm very much enjoying the Cameronites on here start to fret about the EU, golden boy has had his 6 months honeymoon, now lets see what he's made of.
As an Arsenal fan that is true... The Bale season was the first time for ages I really started disliking Spurs
PS Going further down the Guodo list you see a link to where McDonnell supported spitting into someone drink. Current crude left labour and their mad insane accolytes are beneath contempt.
If you move from Edinburgh to London you don't need a visa and that's a good thing. I don't see what changes because it is Paris instead.
I really can't believe you said that. Welcome to Philip's world of no borders.
No borders between certain nations yes. And its not a new world it is what we have built already.
EDIT: Though we still have border control through Schengen which makes sense as the right extends to French people in a reciprocal manner not anyone who has found their way into France.
These "certain nations" - how would you discriminate?
In negotiations and any agreement has to be reciprocal. This is why Schengen is stupid, if an Eritrean finds themselves in Italy they don't have an automatic right to live in Germany just as Germans don't have an automatic right to live in Eritrea.
As a Spurs fan I can always tell when we're doing well, Arsenal fans start slagging us off through worry. I'm very much enjoying the Cameronites on here start to fret about the EU, golden boy has had his 6 months honeymoon, now lets see what he's made of.
As an Arsenal fan that is true... The Bale season was the first time for ages I really started disliking Spurs
Comments
I don;t see why, if he apologises. I read that pressure was brought to bear on the DPP, but the law took its course in the end.
Must be managers fault presumably in all the 90% of English hospitals that are in trouble.
Cant clearly be Lansley/Hunts fault
To those who are sceptical about the EU but view it not as a matter of principle but on a transactional "what do we get from this and could we get a better deal" basis (like me) we could go for either leave or stay depending upon which is the better deal.
If a Farage-fronted leave wins we'll be a lesser and more xenophobic nation with the EEA ruled out as a middle ground. If a cross-party leave wins which keeps the EEA as an option (which means keeping free movement) then it can attract a different scale of voters.
This is not a policy - to the extent that it can be dignified as such - that will command either respect or even understanding from those who take a more hard-headed approach, as Putin undoubtedly does. On the one hand, he knows that he can push Russia's interests hard, because there'll be no push back; on the other, it's very difficult for him to know where the whims of western intervention (which may just be rhetorical but which has an effect all the same), will strike next.
With regard to Russia directly, it's clear that the States and EU would like good relations but also feel compelled to respond to Putin's actions in Ukraine. They're not ready to realign policy to treat Russia as a strategic threat but are taking steps consistent with that conclusion all the same. What Putin can't work out - because Western leaders haven't yet worked it out - is the extent to which they're willing to follow the logic of those steps.
Rest assured I will do the same.
I'll be making up my mind once the results of the renegotiation (if any) are finally released. I'll then have to try to read through all the spin either way, and make a decision. In partiuclar, I'll want to see what the other EU governments have firmly committed to, and what they are using weasel words for.
Having said that, it'll have to be a really impressive renegotiation to arrest me mid-fall and fling me over the other side of the fence. In my case the renegotiation should be called a trampoline.
Oh dear. The sooner the Farage/Banks UKIP only group called Leave.EU realise that they have no broad base and retire the better. Alas, we have two arrogant twa*s in Farage and Banks leading that mob. The question is how long will LEAVE.EU carry on?
Interesting that Hugo Rifkind confessed to being a europhile and said that it was the folk behind Vote Leave that worry him as they are better.
Aird & Loch Ness (Highland) count moves to fourth stage: close fight between the Liberal Democrats and SNP.
This is a SNP defence.
In low politics terms, it probably suits a lot of people having a damaged Watson in place.
I'd love to seem emails and contacts between Watson and Exaro News revealed ...
The only sensible way to decide is what is in the national interest.
Russia wants a buffer of Russia aligned states around its borders, and feels betrayed because assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO would move no further West have been broken. It doesn't want to lose a key strategic ally in the Middle East, and see the area fall under US/Israel/Saudi domination with Iran next for the chop - it would instead prefer a Russia friendly Shia arc including Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.
The US is attempting to preserve its pre-eminence as sole world superpower. It must do this before the economic chickens come home to roost, its debt becomes untenable, and the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency. Power always goes with wealth. It wants to topple Assad, then Iran, ensuring the dominance in the region of itself and its regional allies. It also has a longer term plan to encircle and break up its great power rivals China and Russia. Its main tool for acheiving all this is the bolstering of bordering hostile states, and sponsorship of unrest and uprisings (see Ukraine, see Syria, see Libya), with direct military intervention only where needed. All this is set out in publicly available green papers.
Both state's actions are entirely true to form.
If Farage is a bit player under the Vote Leave campaign and the EEA is not ruled out then that is a substantial difference. This is a matter of policy and politics not just personality, isn't that clear?
Britain Elects @britainelects · 2m2 minutes ago
Liberal Democrat GAIN Aird & Loch Ness (Highland) from SNP.
Farage is not fronting any leave campaign, I don't know why you keep pretending he is
EG for me if Cameron negotiated an end to reciprocal free movement then many in the UK may see that as a great reform and would be more likely to vote to stay. I on the other hand would switch to leave as the EU comes with many costs and the benefit of being able to travel across the entire continent on one passport is the biggest benefit and if I need to apply for a visa to go to France then I don't want to be in the EU.
20 million voters? You're now anticipating a turnout approaching 40m, interesting.
I wouldn't be suprised if Leave.EU continue on to the end, it is not like they are short of money. It will be quite disappointing if the media are incapable of understanding that there will be more than one campaign group for leaving. Only yesterday did I read that TUSC will be setting up their own group.
I imagine the foreseeable future will consist of the media reporting splits in the In campaign and then allowing the Remain campaign to also attack them resulting in minimal discussion on the benefits of leaving being made.
I didn't say you need to score 20 million votes, I said you need to appeal to 20 million. Not everyone you appeal to will vote Leave as both Leave and Stay will appeal to a significant chunk of the voters and each side will only win a portion of those they appeal to.
There would be a visa waver to work, visit, travel or reside in any of the EFTA countries for up to 90 days, even if we weren't part of a more flexible multilateral arrangement - like Norway or Iceland. With Australia, for instance, we allow a working holiday for the under 30s up to one year, which is reciprocal.
After 6 months, I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to take a migration policy view on that individual.
Do look at the age of your wife and realise that your chances go down with each year - sorry to be so blunt. If it is just about affordable now then go for it.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/652451180677873664
We need to wait. I'm not going to guess what will happen in another 12 months time. Just how will the closer union of the eurozone develop?
I grew up in Australia. When I was 17 in my final year of school anyone with European grandparents was seeking to get dual-citizenship from their grandparents so they could get a European passport (UK or whichever nation their grandparent was from) as a European passport was considered so valuable. I agree with them and see value in it too. As I value in the passport I don't want to lose it.
http://www.careerealism.com/bad-leadership-behaviors/
Let's have some common sense here.
I find it amazing that grown up people are honestly saying they want to vote leave for xyz reasons, but won't because the leader of the smallest party in the House of Commons wants to leave for different reasons
I don't like racism or the BNP, but after studying politics at uni I came to the conclusion that mass immigration is the major cause of our problems... I am confident enough in my own belief not to worry about them. I'm not going to stop supporting arsenal because if Piers Morgan either
There is a panoply I agree with is why we should approach it as such. Leave.EU is not doing that, Leave.EU is saying that voting to leave ends freedom of movement which I cherish.
What would be the ideal situation is if we got some sort of cap in the renegotiation. If EU immigration could be capped at 100k for any nation in the EU, then that means most of the benefits of free movement could be retained, but the countries being overwhelmed by incomers could manage the pace a bit better.
If you have the skill set required by France, or any other nation, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you if a vacancy arises.
IF the dominant argument to leave the EU is to end freedom of movement AND that argument wins the day THEN that logically entails the UK choosing to end freedom of movement and thus rules out the EEA.
IF the argument is broad-based with a variety of future options THEN we can determine our future with nothing ruled out.
The two scenarios are different.
Republican candidate Ben Carson: Holocaust would've been “greatly diminished” had Jews been armed with #guns. more: http://tinyurl.com/nl54luy
It isn't just about you, or me for that matter. Existing nations and their citizens should have a say too.
Between my wife and I we have relatives in France, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Australia. If we wanted to we could turn up at Manchester Airport tomorrow and no questions asked board a plane to France and Spain, stay with our relatives, find a new job and start life over there.
We could apply for a visa to South Africa, Canada and Australia and potentially a couple of years later we could get a visa.
I would rather get a new reciprocal movement agreement with other nations similar to ours like Canada, Australia, NZ and USA rather than abolish it with Europe.
I think it is a very legitimate view that the ability to work anywhere in the EU indefinitely is more important than controlling immigration. It is, however, a minority view and virtually anyone that holds it is not going to vote Leave, so the Leave campaign shouldn't try to accommodate it. In the same way, the Remain campaign should not bother trying to attract people who think the EU is the reincarnation of the USSR. Those voters are already lost to them.
If he'd got it, even I might have been tempted by Remain*
*With all the rest of his objectives achieved as well
Lets face it, you've painted yourself into a Farage corner.
If you can't see the distinction between a foreign and domestic move, then I really can't help you.
I recognise that there are some on the centre-right who cherish an absolute freedom of movement right anywhere in the world, and view nations, cultures and geographies as irrelevant - Robert Smithson is another. In an ideal world, why not? It sounds nice, doesn't it? Anyone can choose where they want to live anywhere in the world.
Unfortunately, in the real world, there are downsides to it too and competing interests and issues that must be balanced. There are many precious things lost with such a right. Which is why, and where, pragmatism and common sense come in, not black and white ideology, and that should be the modus operandi of any true conservative.
But we haven't had a war since 1945
As I've said I would love to see free movement expanded in a reciprocal manner to the USA, Canada, Australia and NZ. Which would roughly double the number of people who have free movement with us but probably not be so unpopular with the country. I would not expand it to the Middle East.
Most interesting of all is that as far as I can see it makes no mention of immigration or freedom of movement. If there is any mention it's certainly not prominent. That's presumably because they are smart enough to realise that leaving the EU is very unlikely to change anything on that front.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/issues
EDIT: Though we still have border control through Schengen which makes sense as the right extends to French people in a reciprocal manner not anyone who has found their way into France.
I don't believe for a second that immigration would be unlikely to change if we left the EU - the exit negotiations for future arrangements would ensure that it did.
The more you let us have back, the more we'll pay you in return.
If we got the best of both worlds, we'd easily be able to afford double what we pay and still be RAF.
If you want Europe a la carte, then you've got to pay a la carte prices
Simples.
In future, there could be plenty of Middle Eastern migration that comes to the UK indirectly via the EU.
After all, that's exactly what Cameron was trying to do from *inside* the EU barely a year ago.
Going further down the Guodo list you see a link to where McDonnell supported spitting into someone drink.
Current crude left labour and their mad insane accolytes are beneath contempt.